Quantcast
Channel: Pakistan Affairs
Viewing all 6211 articles
Browse latest View live

The Red Fort or Lal Qila Delhi

$
0
0
English: Red Fort
The Red Fort (usually transcribed into English as Lal Qil'ah or Lal Qila) is a 17th century fort complex constructed by the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan[1] in the walled city of Old Delhi (in present day Delhi, India) that served as the residence of the Mughal Emperors. The fort was the palace for Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan's new capital, Shahjahanabad, the seventh city in the Delhi site. He moved his capital here from Agra in a move designed to bring prestige to his reign, and to provide ample opportunity to apply his ambitious building schemes and interests. It served as the capital of the Mughals until 1857, when Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was exiled by the British Indian government.
The fort lies along the Yamuna River, which fed the moats that surround most of the walls.[2] The wall at its north-eastern corner is adjacent to an older fort, the Salimgarh Fort, a defence built by Islam Shah Suri in 1546. The construction of the Red Fort began in 1638 and was completed by 1648. The Red Fort has had many developments added on after its construction by Emperor Shah Jahan. The significant phases of development were under Aurangzeb and later under later Mughal rulers. It was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2007.[3][4] The earlier Red Fort was built by Tomara king Anangpala, now known as the Qulb Mosque.[5]
 
History
The Red Fort derives its name from the extensive use of red sandstone on the massive walls that surround the fort.[5]Shah Jahan commissioned the construction of the Red Fort in 1638 when he decided to shift his capital from Agra to Delhi. Ustad Ahmad and Ustad Hamid were chosen as the architects for construction of the royal palace. Construction began in the auspicious month of Muharram on 13 May 1638.[6]:01 Construction of the fort was supervised by Shah Jahan himself and was completed in 1648.[7][8] The Red Fort was originally referred to as "Qila-i-Mubarak" (the blessed fort), because it was the residence of the royal family.[9][10] Unlike the other Mughal forts, layout of the boundary walls of the Red Fort is not symmetrical so as to retain and integrate the older Salimgarh Fort.[6]:04 The fortress palace was an important focal point of the medieval city of Shahjahanabad (present day Old Delhi). The planning and aesthetics of the Red Fort represent the zenith of Mughal creativity which prevailed during the reign of emperor Shah Jahan. Aurangzeb, Shah Jahan's successor, added the Moti Masjid to the emperor's private quarters and constructed barbicans in front of the two main gates, which made the entrance route to the palace more circuitous.[6]:08
The administrative and fiscal structure of the Mughals declined after Aurangzeb. The 18th century thus saw a degeneration of the palace and people of the Red Fort. When Jahandar Shah took over the Red Fort in 1712, the palace had been without an emperor for 30 years. Within a year of his rule, Jahandar Shah was murdered and replaced by Farukhsiyar. To combat the declining finances, the silver ceiling of the palace Rang Mahal was replaced by copper during this period. Muhammad Shah, who was also known as Rangila (the colourful) for his deep interest in arts, took over the Red Fort in 1719. In 1739, Nadir Shah, the Persian emperor, attacked the Mughals. The Mughal army was easily defeated and Nadir Shah plundered the Red Fort of its riches including the Peacock Throne. Nadir Shah returned to Persia after three months leaving a destroyed city and a weakening Mughal empire to Muhammad Shah.[6]:09 The internal weaknesses of the Mughal empire turned Mughals into titular heads of Delhi. A treaty signed in 1752 made Marathas the protector of the throne at Delhi.[11][12] The Maratha conquest of Lahore in 1758, put them in direct confrontation with Ahmad Shah Durrani.[13][14] In 1761, after the Marathas lost the third battle of Panipat, Delhi was raided by Ahmed Shah Durrani. In 1771, Shah Alam ascended to the throne in Delhi with the support of the Marathas.[6]:10 In 1783, the Sikh Misl Karorisinghia, led by Baghel Singh Dhaliwal, conquered Delhi and the Red Fort. Sikhs agreed to restore Shah Alam as the emperor and retreat from the fort on the condition that Mughals would construct and protect seven historical Gurudwaras in Delhi associated with the Sikh gurus.[15]
 
Red Fort Today
 
Every year on 15 August, the day India achieved independence from the British, Prime Minister hoists the national flag at the Red Fort, followed by a nationally broadcast speech from its ramparts.[28] The Red Fort is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Old Delhi,[29] attracting thousands of visitors every year.[30] It also happens to be the largest monument in Old Delhi.[31]
Today, a sound and light show describing Mughal history is a tourist attraction in the evenings. The general condition of the major architectural features is mixed. None of the water features, which are extensive, contain water. Some of the buildings are in fairly good condition and have their decorative elements undisturbed. In others, the marble inlay flowers have been removed by looters and vandals. The tea house, though not in its historical state, is a functioning restaurant. The mosque and hamam are closed to the public, though one can catch peeks through the glass windows or marble lattice work. Walkways are left mostly in a crumbling state. Public toilets are available at the entrance and inside the park.
The entrance through the Lahore Gate leads to a retail mall with jewellery and crafts stores. There is a museum of "blood paintings" depicting young Indian martyrs of the 20th century along with the story of their martyrdom. There is also an archaeological museum and an Indian war memorial museum.

Security threats

To prevent terrorist attacks, security is especially tightened around the Red Fort on the eve of Indian Independence Day. Delhi Police and paramilitary personnel keep a vigil on the neighbourhoods around the fort. Sharpshooters of the National Security Guard are deployed on high rises near the Red Fort.[32][33] The aerial space around the fort is declared a no-fly zone during the celebration to prevent aerial attacks,[34]Safe houses are picked in nearby areas where the Prime Minister and other Indian leaders can be rushed to in case of an attack.[32]
The fort was the site of a terrorist attack on 22 December 2000 carried out by six terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba. Two soldiers and a civilian were killed, in what was described by the media as an attempt to derail the India-Pakistan peace talks and relations.[35][36]
Enhanced by Zemanta

How can one not worry so much about things that he/she cannot control?

$
0
0
Deutsch: Viktor Frankl
How can one not worry so much about things that he/she cannot control?” ~ Katy
Hey Katy, the reason why people worry is because (a) they have no control over the situation and (b) worrying is their way of coping and gaining control over the situation, even though they aren’t. If they have complete control over a situation, they would never be worrying about it to begin with.
So now you know—whenever you see people worrying, it’s because they are trying to cope with a situation they feel powerless over.
The problem is that worrying doesn’t actually solve anything; it only creates a lot of negative vibes which stresses us and other people out. It is often said that 99% of things we worry about never come true–when you worry, you merely give a small thing a big shadow. It is a complete waste of energy which we can better use elsewhere.
So rather than worry, I recommend this four-step approach for any stressful situation:
  1. Identify the issues bothering you. Just plain worrying usually blows any issue out of proportion. Gaining clarity on the exact issues helps you nail down on the core problem so you can address it.
  2. Identify your actions to address those issues. Then act on them. Taking action helps to bring control to a situation which you feel helpless over. Worrying only gives you a false sense of control and doesn’t help you accomplish anything.
  3. Imagine the worst case scenario. Then, figure out your contingency plan to address that. The point of this step is to cover your bases for anything bad that happens. By identifying the worst case scenario and preparing for it, you will literally be covered for anything that will be thrown your way. This was how I allayed my stress in my previous job, which I described in The Night I Cried.
  4. Let go and let things take their course, knowing that you have done everything you can and you are ready for the worst even if it happens. Get everything out of your head and live your life, in the present. I find that Day 25: Forgive Yourself of Be a Better Me in 30 Days Program is very useful for letting go.

Example: Letting Go of an Unresolvable Problem

A simple example would be a time when my website went down two years ago. Usually when that happens, I would get on the 24/7 online customer chat and work with the staff until the issue is resolved.
The problem was that I was on a three-day train ride from New York to Los Angeles. There was no Wi-Fi aboard and my phone had no signal too so I couldn’t connect to the internet. The only times I could get online was when the train stopped for gas and that stop had free public Wi-Fi (which was how I discovered my site was down). The next stop was one day away and I wasn’t sure if it would have Wi-Fi.
The only thing I could think of then was, Really, why now of all times?
Now, issues pertaining my website tend to bother me more than other issues as my site is my career, my livelihood, and my life all rolled into one. Every minute the site is offline, I lose revenue, visitors, and potential business and media opportunities, since no one can access my material. It’s as if my life goes on a standstill; I can’t sit, rest, nor do anything until I get the site back up.
As I began hyperventilating, I decided to get a grip.
So here’s the thing, I thought. I’m stuck on this train for the next two-and-a-half days. There is no internet access aboard. No one around me is able to set up a wireless hotspot. The next pit stop is at least half-a-day away. I can either worry non-stop until I reach the next stop or sit back and enjoy the ride for now. What’s it going to be?
It was clear that the latter, enjoying the ride, was the better option. Sure, the downtime was unfortunate, but there was nothing I could do about it, not while sitting on a train with no internet access. I thought about the worst case scenario—that the site would be down for the next three days until I reached my host’s place. This meant a revenue loss of $XXX and lost traffic of X,XXX visitors. That wasn’t all that bad. I just had to earn them back through other means, maybe by working doubly hard in the next few weeks or coming up with a new product soon.
With that, I sat back, relaxed, and enjoyed the rest of the ride. Then when the train stopped for fuel, I quickly hooked my computer up with the public Wi-Fi and resolved the issue on the spot. The worst case scenario of a three-day downtime didn’t happen—it was just an 18-hour downtime in the end. Not all that bad, really, considering what could have happened.
As for the “losses”, I just took it that they weren’t mine to begin with. I focused on creating new ideas and new opportunities for my site rather than getting hung up over revenue and readership that were never mine to begin with.

Stop Worrying, Start Living

Every time you worry, you project a future which has not occurred yet. This future is not optimistic, but pessimistic—and usually a future that was never going to occur anyway. Your projection of this pessimistic future only enforces it and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, such that when it happens, you can seek solace in your “spot on” anticipation of this nasty scenario… then move on to worry further about other things as you prepare yourself for the “worst possible” future.
In the end, you are left with a life where worrying is modus operandi of the day and the only reason why bad things happen is because you keep thinking they will happen. You are like a negative-energy magnet that draws all the bad energy and repels all the good energy such that good things rarely happen anymore.
The reality is that you have control the situation; you always have. You only feel helpless because you let the situation overpower you.
To quote Viktor Frankl, the man who suffered three years of hell in Nazi concentration camps; lost his wife, mom, and brother in those camps; yet still managed to arrive at the conclusion amidst dehumanized conditions that suffering can be meaningful:
“Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
All of us came into this world naked and we will leave this world naked, so it’s really silly to worry in between about things we can never take with us at our deathbeds. So why not enjoy life and make the best of every moment we can given?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef

$
0
0
Increasing crop yields through Afghan-led training
MullahAbdul Salam Zaeef (born 1968 in Kandahar) was the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan before the US invasion of Afghanistan.[1]
He was detained in Pakistan in the fall of 2001 and held until 2005 in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp.[1] The United Nations removed Zaeef from its list of terrorists in July 2010.[2]
Zaeef is the founder and head of Afghan Foundation.
 
Capture and detention
Some time after the U.S. invasion, Zaeef was forced to end his news conferences, seized by Pakistani authorities, and handed over to American operatives.[1] The Pajhwok Afghan News reported that Zaeef was freed from Guantanamo Bay.[3]

  Repatriation

Zaeef was released from Guantanamo in the summer of 2005.[4]
An article in the 18 September 2005 Daily Times Zaeef is quoted as saying that his release was "due to the effort of some friends".[5] He did not attribute his release to his Combatant Status Review Tribunal or his 2005 Administrative Review Board hearing. He described the actions of these two bodies as illegal.

  Abuse claims

Zaeef claims he was chained in illegal "stress positions" and subjected to sleep deprivation and extremes of temperature while held in the USA's Bagram Theater Detention Facility.[6]

  Recent work

  Call for a unity government

On 12 April 2007 Zaeef stirred controversy by calling for a unity-government in Afghanistan.[6]
On Friday 6 June 2008 The Guardian published excerpts from an interview with Zaeef. It reported he claimed negotiations with the Taliban was the key to peace. And it reported he argued that the presence of foreign troops eroded the authority of the central government:[7]
 Move to Kabul
An article in Der Spiegel on 12 April 2007, reported that Zaeef had moved into a "...handsome guest house, located in the dusty modern neighborhood Khosh Hal Khan."[6] The article in Der Spiegel goes on to state that the new home Karzai's government has provided Zaeef is around the corner from one occupied by former Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil. Der Spiegel described Zaeef's home as being guarded, inside and out, by a heavily armed security detail. Der Spiegel described both Zaeef and Muttawakil as regarded as among the more moderate former members of the Taliban.
Zaeff told the Chicago Tribune that Afghan security officials would not allow him to attend the mosque near his Kabul home.[8]
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Bagram torture and prisoner abuse

$
0
0
A multi-bed housing inside the US-built detent...
In 2005, The New York Times obtained a 2,000-page United States Army report concerning the homicides of two unarmed civilianAfghan prisoners by U.S. armed forces in 2002 at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility (also Bagram Collection Point or B.C.P.) in Bagram, Afghanistan. The prisoners, Habibullah and Dilawar, were chained to the ceiling and beaten, which caused their deaths. Military coroners ruled that both the prisoners' deaths were homicides. Autopsies revealed severe trauma to both prisoners' legs, describing the trauma as comparable to being run over by a bus. Seven soldiers were charged.
 
 
 
The alleged torture and homicides took place at the military detention center known as the Bagram Theater Internment Facility, which had been built by the Soviets as an aircraft machine shop during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1980–1989). A concrete-and-sheet metal facility that was retrofitted with wire pens and wooden isolation cells, the center is part of Bagram Air Base in the ancient city of Bagram near Charikar in Parvan, Afghanistan.

  Detainees

In January 2010, the American military released the names of 645 detainees held at the main detention center at Bagram, modifying its long-held position against publicizing such information. This list was prompted by a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed in September 2009 by the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawyers had also demanded detailed information about conditions, rules and regulations.[2][3]

  Victims

  Habibullah

Habibullah died on December 4, 2002. Several U.S. soldiers hit the chained man with so-called "peroneal strikes," or severe blows to the side of the leg above the knee. This incapacitates the leg by hitting the common peroneal nerve.[4] According to the New York Times:
By Dec. 3, Mr. Habibullah's reputation for defiance seemed to make him an open target. [He had taken at least 9 peroneal strikes from two MPs for being "noncompliant and combative."]
... When Sgt. James P. Boland saw Mr. Habibullah on Dec. 3, he was in one of the isolation cells, tethered to the ceiling by two sets of handcuffs and a chain around his waist. His body was slumped forward, held up by the chains. Sergeant Boland ... had entered the cell with [Specialists Anthony M. Morden and Brian E. Cammack]...
kneeing the prisoner sharply in the thigh, "maybe a couple" of times. Mr. Habibullah's limp body swayed back and forth in the chains.[5]
When medics arrived, they found Habibullah dead.

  Dilawar

When beaten, he repeatedly cried "Allah!" The outcry appears to have amused U.S. military personnel, as the act of striking him in order to provoke a scream of "Allah!" eventually "became a kind of running joke," according to one of the MPs. "People kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,'" he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."
The Times reported that:
On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
"A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen.
It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.[6]
There has been a movie created about the incident called Taxi to the Dark Side. In this movie they claim Dilawar was not captured driving past Bagram air base, but while driving through militia territory. He was stopped at a roadblock and given over to the U. S. Army for money reward, because the militia said he was a terrorist.

 Dr. Aafia Siddiqui/Prisoner 650

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistan citizen educated in the United States as a neuroscientist, was suspected of the attempted assault and killing of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. She mysteriously disappeared in 2003 with her three children, and was allegedly detained for five years at Bagram; she was the only female prisoner. She was known to the male detainees as "Prisoner 650" and has been dubbed the "Mata Hari of al-Qaida" or the "Grey Lady of Bagram" by the media. In addition to former detainees of Bagram, Yvonne Ridley maintains that Siddiqui is the "Grey Lady of Bagram" – a ghostly female detainee, who kept prisoners awake "with her haunting sobs and piercing screams". In 2005 male prisoners were so agitated by her plight, Yvonne said, that they went on hunger strike for six days. Siddiqui's family maintains that she has been abused.[7] Her oldest son, who was seven years old when they disappeared, was detained in Afghanistan until 2008,.[8]
“It is my judgment that Dr Siddiqui is sentenced to a period of incarceration of 86 years,” (for the attempted murder of US officers in Afghanistan said Judge Richard Berman, US District Court Judge of a Federal Court in Manhattan on Sept. 23 2010).[9] Pakistani citizen Dr. Aafia Siddiqui denounced the trial saying “(an appeal would be) a waste of time. I appeal to God.[10] " According to reports, 12-year old Ahmed (Dr Aafia’s son) was handed over to his aunt Fauzia Siddiqui in September 2008 after years of detention in a US military base in Afghanistan. Later on, a political activist group reported that a little girl named Fatima, was dropped off in front of the home of Siddiqui’s sister and the girl’s DNA matched that of Ahmed (Dr Aafia’s son).[11] Meanwhile, a Pakistani Senator and chairman of the Pakistani Senate’s Standing Committee on Interior, Senator Talha Mehmood, “slammed the US for keeping the child in a military jail in a cold, dark room for seven years.” The fate of Siddiqui's other son is unknown.

 Binyam Mohamed

Mohamed arrived in the U.K. from Ethiopia in 1994 and sought asylum. In 2001 he converted to Islam and travelled to Pakistan followed by Afghanistan, by his own admission, to see whether Taliban-run Afghanistan was "a good Islamic country". Considered by the U.S. authorities as a would-be bomber, who fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, he was arrested in Pakistan at the airport by Pakistani immigration officials in April 2002 on his way back to the U.K. But Mohamed insisted the only evidence against him was obtained using torture in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan between 2002 and 2004 before being secretly rendered to Guantánamo Bay. He alleges being beaten, scalded, cut and held captive in a black hole at the "Prison of Darkness", where he was deprived of sleep, blasted with sound, starved, beaten and hung up. In October 2008, the U.S. dropped all charges against him. Mohamed was reported as being very ill as a result of a hunger strike in the weeks before his release, while US authorities were reviewing his case.[12] Mohamad also said to fellow Bagram detainee Moazzam Begg in an interview in February 2009 that the woman he and the other male detainees saw at Bagram, named "Prisoner 650", was Aafia Siddiqui, when Begg showed him a picture of her.[13]

  Others

Somali refugee Mohammed Sulaymon Barre, who worked for a funds transfer company, described his Bagram interrogation as "torture."[14] Barre said he was picked up and thrown around the interrogation room when he wouldn't confess to a false allegation. He was then put into an isolation chamber that was maintained at a piercingly cold temperature for several weeks. He said he was deprived of sufficient rations during his time in isolation. He said, as a result of this treatment his hands and feet swelled, causing him such excruciating pain he couldn't stand up.
Zalmay Shah, a citizen of Afghanistan, was detained at Bagram air base and alleges mistreatment there.[15] An article published in the May 2, 2007 issue of The New Republic contained excerpts from an interview with Zalmay Shah.[15] He said he had originally cooperated closely with the Americans. He had worked with an American he knew only as "Tony" in the roundup of former members of the Taliban. According to the article:[15]
 
Involved but uncharged
Some interrogators involved in this incident were sent to Iraq and were assigned to Abu Ghraib prison.
PFC Corsetti was fined and demoted for not having permission to conduct an interrogation at Abu Ghraib.

 Allegations of a widespread pattern of abuse

An editorial of the New York Times noted a parallel with the later abuse and torture of prisoners in Iraq:
(W)hat happened at Abu Ghraib was no aberration, but part of a widespread pattern. It showed the tragic impact of the initial decision by Mr. Bush and his top advisers that they were not going to follow the Geneva Conventions, or indeed American law, for prisoners taken in antiterrorist operations.
The investigative file on Bagram, obtained by The Times, showed that the mistreatment of prisoners was routine: shackling them to the ceilings of their cells, depriving them of sleep, kicking and hitting them, sexually humiliating them and threatening them with guard dogs -- the very same behavior later repeated in Iraq.[41]
In November 2001, SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) program's chief psychologist, Col. Morgan Banks, was sent to Afghanistan, where he spent four months at Bagram. In early 2003, Banks issued guidance for the "behavioral science consultants" who helped to devise Guantánamo's interrogation strategy although he has emphatically denied that he had advocated the use of SERE counter-resistance techniques to break down detainees.

  U.S. government response

The United States government through the Department of State makes periodic reports to the United Nations Committee Against Torture. In October 2005, the report focused on pretrial detention of suspects in the War on Terrorism, including those held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp and in Afghanistan. This particular report is significant as the first official response of the U.S. government to allegations that there is widespread abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. The report denies the allegations.

  McCain Amendment

 The McCain amendment was an amendment to the United States Senate Department of Defense Authorization bill, commonly referred to as the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977 and also known as the McCain Amendment 1977. The amendment prohibited inhumane treatment of prisoners. The Amendment was introduced by Senator John McCain. On October 5, 2005, the United States Senate voted 90-9 to support the amendment.[42]

  Second secret prison

In May 2010, the BBC reported about nine prisoners who "told consistent stories of being held in isolation in cold cells where a light is on all day and night. The men said they had been deprived of sleep by US military personnel there." When the BBC inquired with the International Committee of the Red Cross about this, the ICRC revealed that since August 2009 it was informed by US authorities about inmates of a second prison where detainees are held in isolation and without access to the International Red Cross that is usually guaranteed to all prisoners.[43]

  Film

The 2007 documentary Taxi to the Dark Side focuses on the murder of Dilawar.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Mullah Mohammed Omar

$
0
0
English: United Airlines Flight 175 crashes in...
English: United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center complex in New York City during the September 11 attacks (Photo credit:
Mullah Omar has been wanted by the U.S. State Department's Rewards for Justice program since October 2001, for sheltering Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda militants in the years prior to the September 11 attacks.[3] Those who were close to him say that he requested evidence from the United States regarding bin Laden and his alleged hand in the 9/11 attacks but did not receive any.[4] He is believed to be directing the Taliban insurgency against the U.S.-led NATO forces and the Government of Afghanistan.[5][6]
Despite his political rank and his high status on the Rewards for Justice most wanted list,[3] not much is publicly known about him. Few photos exist of him, none of them official, and a picture used in 2002 by many media outlets has since been established to be someone other than him. The authenticity of the existing images is debated.[7] Apart from the fact that he is missing one eye, accounts of his physical appearance are contradictory: Omar is described as very tall (some say 2 m).[8][9] Mullah Omar has been described as shy and non-talkative with foreigners.[10]
During his tenure as Emir of Afghanistan, Omar seldom left the city of Kandahar and rarely met with outsiders,[8] instead relying on Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil for the majority of diplomatic necessities. Many, including Afghan PresidentHamid Karzai, claim that Mullah Omar and his Taliban movement are used as puppets by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in Pakistan. Additionally, many current and former U.S. senior military officials such as Robert Gates,[11]Stanley McChrystal,[12]David Petraeus[13] and others claim that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are also involved in helping the Taliban.[14]
 Personal life
Omar is thought to have been born around 1959 or 1962 in the village of Nodeh in the Deh Rahwod District[2] of Urozgan Province[1][15] of Afghanistan to a landless peasant family.[16] He is an ethnic Pashtun from the Hotak tribe, which is part of the larger Ghilzai branch.[17] His father is said to have died before he was born and the responsibility of fending for his family fell to him as he grew older.[18]
Omar fought as a guerrilla with the anti-soviet Mujahideen under the command of Nek Mohammad and others, but did not fight against the Najibullah regime between 1989 and 1992.[18] It was reported that he was thin, but tall and strongly built, and "a crack marksman who had destroyed many Soviet tanks during the Afghan War."[19]
Omar was wounded four times. Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef claims to have been present when shrapnel destroyed one of his eyes during a battle in Sangsar, Panjwaye District shortly before the 1987 Battle of Arghandab.[20] Other sources place this event in 1986[21] or in the 1989 Battle of Jalalabad.[22]
After he was disabled, Omar may have studied and taught in a madrasah, or Islamic seminary, in the Pakistani border city of Quetta. He was reportedly a mullah at a village madrasah near the Afghan city of Kandahar.
Unlike many Afghan mujahideen, Omar speaks Arabic.[23] He was devoted to the lectures of Sheikh Abdullah Azzam,[24] and took a job teaching in a madrassa in Quetta. He later moved to Binoori Mosque in Karachi, where he led prayers, and later met with Osama bin Laden for the first time.[8]

  Forming the Taliban

Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the collapse of Najibullah's Soviet-backed regime in 1992, the country fell into chaos as various mujahideen factions fought for control. Omar returned to Singesar and founded a madrassah.[25] According to one legend, in 1994, he had a dream in which a woman told him: "We need your help; you must rise. You must end the chaos. Allah will help you."[25] Mullah Omar started his movement with less than 50 armed madrassah students, known simply as the Taliban (Students). His recruits came from sand madrassahs in Afghanistan and from the Afghan refugee camps across the border in Pakistan. They fought against the rampant corruption that had emerged in the civil war period and were initially welcomed by Afghans weary of warlord rule. Reportedly, in early 1994, Omar led 30 men armed with 16 rifles to free youths who had been kidnapped and raped by a warlord, hanging the local commander from a tank gun barrel. The youths were two young girls. His movement gained momentum through the year, and he quickly gathered recruits from Islamic schools. By November 1994, Omar's movement managed to capture the whole of the Kandahar Province and then captured Herat in September 1995.[26]

 Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

In April 1996, supporters of Mullah Omar bestowed on him the title Amir al-Mu'minin (أمير المؤمنين, "Commander of the Faithful"),[27] after he donned a cloak alleged to be that of Muhammad which was locked in a series of chests, held inside the Mosque of the Cloak of the Prophet Mohammed in the city of Kandahar. Legend decreed that whoever could retrieve the cloak from the chest would be the great Leader of the Muslims, or "Amir al-Mu'minin"[citation needed].[28]
In September 1996, Kabul fell to Mullah Omar and his followers. The civil war continued in the northeast corner of the country, near Tajikistan. The nation was named the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in October 1997 and was recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A "reclusive, pious and frugal" leader,[8] Omar visited Kabul twice between 1996 to 2001. Omar stated: "All Taliban are moderate. There are two things: extremism ["ifraat", or doing something to excess] and conservatism ["tafreet", or doing something insufficiently]. So in that sense, we are all moderates – taking the middle path.[29]
In a BBC's Pashto interview after the September 11 attacks in 2001, he told that "You (the BBC) and American puppet radios have created concern. But the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America...This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for Allah's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, Allah willing, it [America] will fall to the ground... We will not accept a government of wrong-doers. We prefer death than to be a part of an evil government..."[30]

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Diego Garcia

$
0
0
English: Scrubby Shrubland, Diego Garcia, Brit...
English: Scrubby Shrubland, Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Diego Garcia is a tropical, footprint-shaped coral atoll located south of the equator in the central Indian Ocean. It is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).
The atoll is approximately 1,970 nautical miles (3,650 km) east of the coast of Africa (at Tanzania), 967 nautical miles (1,790 km) south-southwest of the southern tip of India (at Kanyakumari) and 2,550 nautical miles (4,720 km) west-northwest of the west coast of Australia (at Cape Range National Park, Western Australia). Diego Garcia lies in the Chagos Archipelago at the southernmost tip of the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge– a vast submarine range in the Indian Ocean,[2] topped by a long chain of coral reefs, atolls, and islands comprising Lakshadweep, Maldives, and the Chagos Archipelago. Local time is UTC+06:00 year-round (DST is not observed).[3]
 
The United States Navy operates Naval Support Facility (NSF) Diego Garcia, a large naval ship and submarine support base, military air base, communications and space-tracking facility, and an anchorage for pre-positioned military supplies for regional operations aboard Military Sealift Command ships in the lagoon.[4]
Mauritius sought to regain sovereignty, lost to the UK in 1965, over the Chagos Archipelago. Between 1968 and 1973, the Chagossians, then numbering about 2,000 people, were expelled by the British government to Mauritius and Seychelles to allow the United States to establish a military base on the island. Today, the exiled Chagossians are still trying to return, claiming that the forced expulsion and dispossession was illegal (see Depopulation of Diego Garcia).[5][6]
 
Few could accuse you of ignorance for never having heard of Diego Garcia—much less for not knowing that it's not a person but an island. One of the most obscure and far-flung places on earth, Diego Garcia doesn't come tripping off the tongue of even the most geographically sophisticated.
There are times, however, when the U.S. military has considered this 17-square-mile atoll of coral and sand in the middle of the Indian Ocean one of the most valuable pieces of real estate on Earth.

A British Territory, Leased to the United States

The Portuguese explored Diego Garcia in the 1500s (it is named for a Portuguese navigator). Between 1814 and 1965 it was a territory of Mauritius. It then became part of the Chagos Archipelago, which belonged to the newly created British Indian Ocean Territory. In 1970, the island was leased to the United States, and developed as a joint U.S.-UK air and naval refueling and support station during the cold war. Located in the middle of the Indian Ocean and out of cyclone range, it was ideal for keeping an eye on the Soviet Union.

A Strategic Air Base

Diego Garcia proved to be critically important as a refueling base during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and during Operation Desert Fox, it served as a base for B-52 bombers, which on Dec. 17, 1998, launched nearly 100 long-range cruise missiles aimed at Iraq. Beginning on Oct. 7, 2001, the United States again used Diego Garcia when it launched B-2 and B-52 bombers attacks against Afghanistan. In the current British and American-led war against Iraq, Diego Garcia has once again played a crucial strategic role.
The fact that Diego Garcia is more than 3,000 miles south of Iraq, and just a shade closer to Afghanistan, has not posed the logistical problems one might expect. According to the U.S. Air Force, B-52s have an "unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles."

The Military Base Today

In 2006, about 40 British and 1,000 U.S. military personnel, and 2,400 support workers of various nationalities (primarily Filipino and Sri Lankan) reside there. A number of al-Qaeda suspects are thought to be held and interrogated on the island (although the U.S. military will not confirm this), including Hambali (Riduan Isamuddin), the leader of the Asian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, responsible for the 2002 terrorist bombing in Bali.
 

Forced Removal of the Indigenous Inhabitants

Although Diego Garcia once had a small native population, the inhabitants, known as the Ilois, or the Chagossians, were forced to relocate (1967–1973) so that the island could be turned into the U.S. military base. Most of the roughly 1,500 displaced Chagossians were agricultural workers and fisherman. Uprooted and robbed of their livelihood, the Chagossians now live in poverty in Mauritius's urban slums, more than 1,000 miles from their homeland. A smaller number were deported to the Seychelles. About 850 islanders forced off Diego Garcia are alive today, and another 4,300 Chagossians have been born in exile. A 2003 60 Minutes segment and a 2004 documentary by Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, Stealing a Nation, have done much to publicize the little-known plight of the islanders.

The Chagossians' Search for Justice

The Chagossians have turned to the British courts to fight for the right to return to their homeland. In 2000, a British court ruled that the order to evacuate Diego Garcia's inhabitants was invalid, but the court also upheld the island's military status, which permits only personnel authorized by the military to inhabit the island. The Ilois also sued the British government for compensation, but in Oct. 2003 a British judge ruled that although the Chagossians had been treated "shamefully" by the government, their claims were unfounded.

A Further Setback

To further thwart the Chagossians' claims—and as a result of strong pressure from the U.S., which has cited security reasons for keeping the islanders from returning—the British government issued an "Order of Council" in 2004, prohibiting islanders from ever returning to Diego Garcia. This archaic, centuries-old royal prerogative permitted the Blair government to overrule the 2000 High court verdict.

Vindication

But in May 2006, the High Court in London ruled that the Chagossians may in fact return to other Chagossian islands, and offered a withering assessment of the British conduct in the case, calling it "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards."
"The suggestion that a minister can, through an Order in Council, exile a whole population from a British Overseas Territory and claim he is doing so for the 'peace, order and good government' of the Territory is repugnant."

American Resistance

The Chagossians have accepted that they cannot return to Diego Garcia because of the U.S. airbase, but this new verdict paves the way for the islanders to move elsewhere in the Chagos archipelago, to the Salomon islands and Peros Banhos, which are more than 100 miles from Diego Garcia. The U.S., however, is opposed to anyone other than military personnel and their employees living anywhere in the Chagos archipelago, asserting that security will be compromised. According to a State Department official, Lincoln Bloomfield Jr., allowing civilians in the archipelago could potentially lead to "terrorists infiltrating the islands." Having finally triumphed in a hard-won and lengthy legal battle, the Chagossians now find themselves at loggerheads with the world's superpower.


 
 
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Chemical attack in Syria

$
0
0

English: Ban Ki-moon 日本語: 潘基文
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, has announced that the global body will launch an investigation into allegations that chemical weapons were used near the northern city of Aleppo.

The UN chief said on Thursday the investigation would look into "the specific incident brought to my attention by the Syrian government".

"I have decided to conduct a United Nations investigation into the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria," Ban told reporters.
Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from New York, said: "It will take some time for the UN to get investigators on the ground.
"They need to get assurances from the government and the opposition that their investigation team will be safe when they are on the ground carrying out their work."

Syria's government and rebels on Wednesday demanded an international inquiry into the deadly attack which both sides cite as an evidence that the other has used chemical weapons.

The opposition Syrian National Coalition said it also wanted an investigation into another incident of alleged chemical attack in Otaiba, a town near the capital city of Damascus.

Ban said he was aware of other allegations of the reported use of chemical weapons, but did not make clear whether those would be part of the investigation.
"Full cooperation from all parties will be essential. I stress that this includes unfettered access," the UN chief said.
'Difficult mission'
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and World Health Organisation are helping to set up what the UN chief predicted would be "a difficult mission".

Bays said: "Some countries, notably Britain and France, wanted a wide-ranging investigation into all the allegations.

"Russia though said they were asking into investigations into some incidents which were merely, in the words of the Russian UN ambassador, 'rumours'."

The attack, which killed at least 26 people on Tuesday, if confirmed, would be the first use of chemical weapons in the nearly two-year-old conflict.

Washington has disputed the regime's claim and said there was no evidence that the rebels had fired chemical weapons.

"So far we have no evidence to substantiate the reports that chemical weapons were used [on Tuesday]," said Robert Ford, the US ambassador to Syria, adding that the administration was extremely concerned and trying to verify reports of such weapons being used.
374
Source:
Al Jazeera And Agencies
Enhanced by Zemanta

Robert Fisk

$
0
0
Robert Fisk during a lecture at Carleton Unive...
Robert Fisk during a lecture at Carleton University, Canada.
Robert Fisk is an English writer and journalist from Maidstone, Kent. He has been Middle East correspondent of The Independent for over thirty years, primarily based in Beirut.[1] Fisk holds more British and International Journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent. He has also been voted International Journalist of the Year seven times. He has published a number of books and reported on several wars and armed conflicts.
An Arabic speaker,[2] he is one of few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden, which he did on three occasions between 1993 and 1997.[3][4]
 
Early life
He was born in Maidstone, Kent, on 12 July 1946, an only child. His father, already in his late 40s, was Borough Treasurer at Maidstone Council and had fought in the WWI trenches.[5]

  Education

He was educated at Yardley Court preparatory school,[6]Sutton Valence School and Lancaster University,[7] where he cut his journalistic teeth on the student magazine John O'Gauntlet. He later gained a PhD in Political Science, from Trinity College, Dublin in 1983.[8] The title of his doctoral thesis was "A condition of limited warfare: Éire's neutrality and the relationship between Dublin, Belfast and London, 1939–1945".[8]

  Newspaper correspondent

He worked on the Sunday Express diary column before a disagreement with the editor, John Junor, prompted a move to The Times.[9] From 1972–75, the height of The Troubles, Fisk served as Belfast correspondent for The Times, before becoming its correspondent in Portugal covering the aftermath of the Carnation Revolution. He then was appointed Middle East correspondent (1976–1988). When a story of his was spiked (Iran Air Flight 655) after Rupert Murdoch's takeover, he moved to The Independent in April 1989. The New York Times once described Robert Fisk as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain".[10] He reported the Northern Ireland troubles in the 1970s, the Portuguese Revolution in 1974, the Lebanese Civil War, the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Iran–Iraq War, the Gulf War, the Bosnian War, the Algerian Civil War, the Kosovo War, the 2001 international intervention in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

  War reporting

Fisk has lived in Beirut since 1976,[11] and remained there throughout the Lebanese Civil War. He was one of the first journalists to visit the scene of the Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon, as well as the SyrianHama Massacre. His book on the Lebanese conflict, Pity the Nation, was first published in 1990.
Fisk also reported on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Bosnian War, the Kosovo War, the Algerian Civil War, among other conflicts. During the Iran-Iraq War, he suffered partial but permanent hearing loss as a result of being close to Iraqi heavy artillery in the Shatt-al-Arab when covering the early stages of the conflict.[12]
After the United States and allies launched their intervention in Afghanistan, Fisk was for a time transferred to Pakistan to provide coverage of that conflict. While reporting from there, he was attacked and beaten by a group of Afghan refugees fleeing heavy bombing by the United States Air Force; he was saved from this attack by another Afghan refugee. In his graphic account of his own beating, Fisk absolved the attackers of responsibility and pointed out that their "brutality was entirely the product of others, of us—of we who had armed their struggle against the Russians and ignored their pain and laughed at their civil war and then armed and paid them again for the 'War for Civilisation' just a few miles away and then bombed their homes and ripped up their families and called them 'collateral damage.'"[13]
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Fisk was stationed in Baghdad and filed many eyewitness reports. He has criticised other journalists based in Iraq for what he calls their "hotel journalism", literally reporting from one's hotel room without interviews or first hand experience of events.[14] His opposition to the war brought criticism from both Irish Sunday Independent columnist and senator, Eoghan Harris,[15] and The Guardian columnist, Simon Hoggart.[16] Fisk has criticised the Coalition's handling of the sectarian violence in post-invasion Iraq, and argued that the official narrative of sectarian conflict is not possible: "The real question I ask myself is: who are these people who are trying to provoke the civil war? Now the Americans will say it's Al Qaeda, it's the Sunni insurgents. It is the [Shia] death squads. Many of the death squads work for the Ministry of Interior. Who runs the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad? Who pays the Ministry of the Interior? Who pays the militia men who make up the death squads? We do, the occupation authorities. (...) We need to look at this story in a different light."[17]

  Osama bin Laden

Fisk is one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden—three times (all published by The Independent: 6 December 1993, 10 July 1996, and 22 March 1997). During one of Fisk's interviews with Bin Laden, Fisk noted an attempt by Bin Laden to convert him. Bin Laden said; "Mr Robert, one of our brothers had a dream. He dreamed ... that you were a spiritual person ... this means you are a true Muslim." Fisk replied; "Sheikh Osama, I am not a Muslim ... I am a journalist ... A journalist's task is to tell the truth." Bin Laden replied: "If you tell the truth, that means you are a good Muslim."[18][19] During the 1996 interview, Bin Laden accused the Saudi royal family of corruption. During the 1997 (and final) interview, Bin Laden said he sought God's help "to turn America into a shadow of itself".[20]
Fisk strongly condemned the September 11 attacks, describing them as a "hideous crime against humanity," but he also denounced the Bush administration's response to the attacks, arguing that "a score of nations" were being identified and positioned as "haters of democracy" or "kernels of evil," and urged a more honest debate on U.S. policy in the Middle East. He argued that such a debate had hitherto been avoided "because, of course, to look too closely at the Middle East would raise disturbing questions about the region, about our Western policies in those tragic lands, and about America's relationship with Israel."[21]
In 2007, Fisk expressed personal doubts about the official historical record of the attacks. In an article for The Independent, he claimed that, while the Bush administration was incapable of successfully carrying out such attacks due to its organisational incompetence, he is "increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11" and added that he does not condone the "crazed 'research' of David Icke, but is "talking about scientific issues".[22] Fisk had earlier addressed similar concerns in a speech at Sydney University in 2006.[23] During the speech, Fisk said: "Partly I think because of the culture of secrecy of the White House, never have we had a White House so secret as this one. Partly because of this culture, I think suspicions are growing in the United States, not just among Berkeley guys with flowers in their hair. (...) But there are a lot of things we don't know, a lot of things we’re not going to be told. (...) Perhaps the [fourth] plane was hit by a missile, we still don't know."[24]

  Views

Fisk is a pacifist and has never voted.[25] He has said that journalism must "challenge authority, all authority, especially so when governments and politicians take us to war." He has quoted with approval the Israeli journalist Amira Hass: "There is a misconception that journalists can be objective ... What journalism is really about is to monitor power and the centres of power."[26] Speaking on "Lies, Misreporting, and Catastrophe in the Middle East," at the First Congregational Church of Berkeley, 22 September 2010, Fisk stated, "I think it is the duty of a foreign correspondent to be neutral and unbiased on the side of those who suffer, whoever they may be."[27] He has written at length on how much of contemporary conflict has its origin, in his view, in lines drawn on maps: "After the allied victory of 1918, at the end of my father's war, the victors divided up the lands of their former enemies. In the space of just seventeen months, they created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and most of the Middle East. And I have spent my entire career—in Belfast and Sarajevo, in Beirut and Baghdad—watching the people within those borders burn."[28]
The blogosphere term fisking originates from various American conservative blogs, which have taken particular issue with Mr. Fisk, who holds a "very skeptical view of U.S. foreign policy", and his articles and reports. Many of these bloggers have responded by reprinting his dispatches on their blogs, adding their own paragraph-by-paragraph commentary, purportedly dissecting and debunking Fisk's facts and opinions.[29] Irrespective of the success of their endeavour, the term "fisking" has come to denote the practice of "savaging an argument and scattering the tattered remnants to the four corners of the internet".[30]
In a 2002 appearance at the Cambridge Union Society, actor John Malkovich when asked whom he would most like to "fight to the death", replied that he would "rather just shoot" journalist Robert Fisk and British MPGeorge Galloway.[31] Fisk reacted with outrage at both the comment made by Malkovich and for also "associating me with a jerk like Galloway".[32]

  Personal life

He married American journalist Lara Marlowe in 1994 and they divorced in 2006.

  Awards

Fisk has received the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year seven times,[33] and twice won its "Reporter of the Year" award.[34] He also received Amnesty International UK Media Awards in 1992 for his report "The Other Side of the Hostage Saga", The Independent on Sunday,[citation needed] 1998 for his reports from Algeria[35] and again in 2000 for his articles on the NATO air campaign against the FRY in 1999.[36]

  Honours

  Books

His 2005 work, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, with its criticism of Western and Israeli approaches to the Middle East, was well received by critics and students of international affairs and is perhaps his best-known work.

  Video documentary

Fisk produced a three-part series titled From Beirut To Bosnia in 1993 which Fisk says was an attempt "to find out why an increasing number of Muslims had come to hate the West."[44] Fisk says that the Discovery Channel did not show a repeat of the films, after initially showing them in full, due to a letter campaign launched by pro-Israel groups such as CAMERA.[44][45]

  Forgery misattributed to Robert Fisk

  • Saddam Hussein — From Birth to Martyrdom (2007). Egypt: Ibda; 272 pages. This was an Egyptian publication which falsely claimed Fisk to be the author. [46]
Enhanced by Zemanta

At least 2 million expatriates may lose their jobs in Saudi Arabia

$
0
0
Flag of Saudi Arabia Español: Bandera de Arabi...
 
 
Courtesy : Arab News
 
At least 2 million expatriates may lose their jobs or leave the Kingdom shortly as about 250,000 small and medium enterprises will be listed in the Red category of the Labor Ministry’s Nitaqat system on Wednesday.
“About 250,000 trade, industrial and service firms have been given warning that their work permits would not be renewed because they have so far failed to employ at least one Saudi,” Al-Yaum reported yesterday quoting a high-level Labor Ministry source.
The deadline given to these SMEs to correct their situation ends Wednesday. The ministry had asked these firms to employ at least one Saudi to change their status and receive the ministry’s various services.
The source said the ministry would not renew work permits of employees in Red category firms and as a result their iqamas would not be renewed. According to a new law passed by the Cabinet, such iqama violators will be arrested and deported by the Interior Ministry.
The source said the ministry would provide regional governorates a list of SMEs that have so far failed to employ Saudis to take punitive action.
About a month ago, there were 340,000 firms without even a single Saudi working there. These firms have been given a deadline to correct their situation by March 27.
Saudi Arabia has deported more than 200,000 foreigners staying illegally in the country in four months, Passport Department officials said. The deportees included people who were smuggled into the country and expatriates who did not regularize their stay or were not allowed to renew their resident permits.
A majority of 250,000 firms in the Kingdom are involved in illegal cover-up businesses. The new law passed by the Cabinet targets such businesses and those involved in such activities would be punished.
“What is happening in Saudi Arabia now is a cleaning operation,” said Usman Irumpuzhi, an Indian journalist based in Jeddah. “This is a move against illegal workers and businesses, not against expatriates. The companies in the Premium and Green categories are still allowed to recruit foreign workers,” he told Arab News.
He said many Indians have already left the Kingdom on exit only visas because of the new regulations. “According to some sources, at least 100 Indians are leaving Jeddah every day on exit-only visas. This will definitely create a shortage in the number of workers and prices of goods and services will go up,” he added.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Jihad-an-nafs (Jihad is to struggle against one's own self and... desires)

$
0
0
Jihad-an-nafs (Jihad is to struggle against one's own self and... desires)
***************************************************

Jihad-an-nafs is the most important and greatest jihad in islam.
The messenger of Allah ( Muhammad Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam ) said "The best Jihad is for one to perform Jihad against his own self and against his desires".

Struggling against one's self desires means forcing yourself to follow the orders of Allah and to stay away from what Allah has ordered us to stay away from.

This includes performing the obligatory and the voluntary, and to abandon all acts that are Haram (unlawful) or Makrooh (disliked).

This type of jihad also includes forcing oneself to behave with the best manners, the best morals, and to stay away from bad behavior at a time when our desires tell us the opposite.

The Messenger ( Muhammad Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam ) said: "The best Jihad is for one to perform Jihad against his own self and against his desires" [Abu Nu'aim]

The Prophet ( Muhammad Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam ) said: "Jihad against one's own self in the Cause of Allah is the best Jihad" [at-Tabaraani]

The Messenger ( Muhammad Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam ) said (during his farewell Hajj): "Should I inform you of who the Mu'min (true believer) is? It is he who people are secure from him with regards to their wealth and their own selves. The (true) Muslim is he who people are safe from (being harmed by) his tongue and hand. The (true) Mujahid is he who performs Jihad an-Nafs in the obedience of Allah. And the (true) Muhajir (the migrant in the Cause of Allah) is he who abandons error and sin" [Ahmed, al-Haakim and at-Tabaraani]


Note:

Please share it because spreading a Good or Islamic Knowledge is Sadqa (charity) Any good deed that a Muslim starts during his life time, and that is of renewed benefit and ongoing use for the Muslims, will continue to benefit him and augment his record of good deeds, even after his departure - as long as its benefits continue to reach others.

Allah, the Most High, says:

"We record that (deeds) which they have put forward and their traces (that which they have left behind)." [ Al Quran 36:12]

Abu Hurayrah, rahimahullah, reported that Allah's Messenger, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said, "When a human being dies, all of his deeds are terminated except for three types: an ongoing sadaqah, a knowledge (of Islam) from which others benefit, and a righteous child who makes du'a for him." [Muslim and others]
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Noam Chomsky Life and History

$
0
0
Noam Chomsky in 2004
Noam Chomsky 

 

(Avram) Noam Chomsky is an eminent linguist and a radical political philosopher of international reputation. He was born on December 7, 1928 in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, USA) where he grew up in a family of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jewish immigrants who had gone through New York before settling in Philadelphia. According to Chomsky they remained "immersed in both Hebrew culture and literature." Not surprisingly, therefore, Chomsky’s parents both taught at a Hebrew school. Before he was two years of age they sent him to an experimental progressive school, where he remained until the age of twelve. There he would learn that everybody has a place and that everyone can do something important. Chomsky himself remembers a childhood absorbed in reading. He can see himself curled up on a sofa reading the books he used to borrow from the library often up to a dozen at a time. Having until then been to a school where he would neither experience competition amongst his classmates nor any kind of ranking relative to others, he would not learn until middle school that he is a good student. His years there and subsequently in high school, however, were characterized by ruthless competitiveness and they remain a period of his life almost completely blocked out of his memory, except for the emotional aspects, which he has qualified as rather negative.
Today Chomsky is Professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he has taught all of his career. He founded generative linguistics, which in and of itself was a revolution in his field and beyond. He also became known to the general public, both at home and abroad by being a committed intellectual with a clear inclination for what he referred to early as "anarcho-syndicalism". Syndicalisme is a French word derived from Greek that means "trade unionism".
The first article Chomsky ever wrote was published in the school newspaper just a few weeks after his tenth birthday as an editorial on the fall of Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War. Chomsky came across anarchism very young and even published an anti-fascist article when he was just twelve. Thanks to an assistance program for persons with disabilities in New York City in the 30s, Chomsky’s uncle who was a hunchback had been given a newspaper stand to tend behind the exit of the subway station of the 72nd Street and Broadway. The kiosk, as a result of being behind the exit hardly made any money, but it became a forum where radical ideas came together, and where the young Chomsky would work in the evenings and take part in the rich intellectual debates. Chomsky would even declare years later that it is where he got his political education.
Chomsky has been a member of both the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and of the National Academy of Sciences. Over the years Noam Chomsky has been invited to numerous major universities all around the globe. He has received at least ten honorary university degrees from around the world. In 1988, Japan awarded him with the Kyoto Prize for the Basic Sciences category. In terms of its prestige, its intent, and its monetary value ($350,000), it is very similar to the Nobel Prize. He has been the eighth most cited intellectual in the scientific literature for a long time and was identified in 2005 by the British magazine Prospect as the most influential living scholar in the world. Indeed his influence extends beyond that of science and in 1992 The Arts and Humanities Citation Index recognized Chomsky as being cited more than any other living scholar in the eighties and early nineties. Indeed, with William Shakespeare, Karl Marx and the Bible, Chomsky is apparently one of the top ten most cited in the humanities.
In 1945 he began studying philosophy, mathematics and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania where his teachers included the famous philosopher and systems scientist C. West Churchman, the distinguished philosopher Nelson Goodman and the renowned linguist Zellig Harris. In 1949 Noam Chomsky marries the linguist and education specialist Carol Schatz’s whom he knew since early childhood and with whom he would have three children, two girls and one boy (Aviva, Diane and Harry). Carol Chomsky died of cancer in 2008. Under the guidance of teachers such as the Russian linguist and literary theorist Roman Jakobson and one of his former mentors Nelson Goodman, Chomsky did research for several years at Harvard University on the grammatical constructions of Hebrew. In 1955 he presented a doctoral thesis on syntactic structures entitled "Transformational Analysis", which would pave the way for his revolutionary concept of transformational grammar.
Chomsky then joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge where he was first appointed professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, before being promoted and take the Ferrari P. Ward chair in 1966. Finally in 1976 he became "Institute Professor", a title which is given to members of the faculty who have made major contribution to both their field as well as the MIT community. In total, Chomsky would teach linguistics at MIT for fifty years, retiring from the job in 2005.
A question often asked throughout the years by many people, including Chomsky himself, has been whether there is connection between Chomsky’s theoretical pioneering linguistics and his activist progressive politics. And if so, how strong is it? Chomsky today gives essentially the same answer to the question as he has throughout his career. Already in an 1971 interview he answered in a most interesting and genuinely honest way:
I would be very pleased to be able to discover intellectually convincing connections between my own anarchist convictions on the one hand and what I think I can demonstrate or at least begin to see about the nature of human intelligence on the other. But I simply can’t find intellectually satisfying connections between those two domains. I can discover some tenuous points of contact. [...] I happen to believe in the libertarian conclusions and I would like to discover a solid base for them in some conception of human nature. But of course I have to leave an open mind to the possibility that maybe I am completely wrong about this. Maybe in fact human beings are fundamentally competitive, aggressive. Maybe they have all the hateful characteristics which capitalist ideology presupposes. That’s a possible - empirical possibility. I don’t believe it but I also don’t think I can disprove it. I would like to believe that it’s false and that a different society will bring out and be built upon other much more desirable characteristics of human beings. And I would like to be able to show those characteristics exist, that they are in a sense fundamental. That they are muted and in fact deformed by capitalist ideology. But that remains to be demonstrated in my opinion and I don’t want to claim to have a demonstration where I only have a hope.
In strictly academic circles Noam Chomsky is best known as the theoretician who came up with the theory of transformational generative grammar, which revolutionized cognitive and linguistic sciences in the middle of the twentieth century. Since then, it has had a very important impact on both the analytic philosophy take of philosophy of language and philosophy of mind, as distinct to the continental philosophy one. Philosophy of language investigates the use, nature and origins of language. Whereas philosophy of mind studies the nature of the mind, its properties, but also consciousness. We must think of what is known as the mind-body problem (Descartes), and particularly the discussion of the origin of knowledge common to both philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. The analytic and continental traditions approach each philosophy in ways that are significantly different.
It is important to note it is increasingly argued today that the opposition between analytic (Anglo-American) and continental (European) or critical philosophy is a division that needs to be transcended. One proponent of this view is the continental philosopher Simon Critchley, who teaches at the European Graduate School (EGS). He points out that just as continental philosophy can sometimes be guilty of obscurantism, analytic philosophy can as often be accused of scientism. Nevertheless, there are important differences in how they approach both philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. Furthermore, since they are closely related to both Chomsky’s linguistics and his politics, it is therefore critical to point to some of the main ones here.
Not surprisingly, Chomsky situates himself in the analytic tradition. Moreover, Chomsky has dismissed and accused some of the leading figures of the 20th century of a kind of obscurantism including Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, referring to them as a "postmodernist cult". In the mid nineties Chomsky was being asked about them and as a response he posted a final statement saying why he sees them that way. There he said about deconstruction that he could not really comment "because most of it seems to me gibberish". That "Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Julia Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand..." In the same vein, in an interview Chomsky declared: "I don’t know this literature very well, and to tell you the truth, the reason I don’t know it is that I don’t find it interesting. I try to read it now and then but just don’t find it very interesting." Chomsky does not find anything interesting in this literature and concedes that maybe he does not understand it. Further, he asked on several occasions that someone explain to him in plain language what it is really about and what is new about it. As far as he can see there is nothing theoretically worthwhile there, partly because such literature does not appeal to scientific reason. In fact in many ways it wants to challenge reason and uses quite a few neologisms as a way to interrogate the way reason appears in a variety of ways in language. In this way it may be fair to say that Chomsky thus finds such thought even dangerous in the sense that, according to him, by unnecessarily complicating things without proving anything in the traditional sense, it may contribute to the kind of manufactured thought he is forcefully against both in his linguistic and political work. Yet Chomsky’s position is unexpected in a way because Derrida et al.’s work clearly situates itself as part of a kind of critical thought.
More telling still of the philosophical difference, in 1971 Chomsky was invited to debate the French thinker Michel Foucault on Dutch television for The International Philosophers Project. It gave rise to a fascinating debate, which has been published several times since then, most recently as The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature (2006). Chomsky argued for the concept of human nature as a political guide for activism. Indeed, Chomsky believes human nature to be something that is largely definable, and even as he concedes that we may never get to a perfect definition, he wants to act with the best definition we have. While Foucault on the other hand sees no human nature except for the concept of it, which is inevitably ridden with power. He argued that any notions of human nature cannot escape such influence and must therefore first be critiqued as such, which he considers to be an urgent task.
To a large extent, the different ways in which analytical and continental philosophy diverge emerge from the argument that experience and knowledge are mediated by conditions that, while they need to be critiqued, are not directly accessible to an empirical and thus scientific examination. This was first argued it is generally accepted by 18th century continental philosopher, Immanuel Kant, and it has had several important incarnations in continental philosophy since then. While on the other hand, as a a self-declared Cartesian, Chomsky (Cartesian Linguistics, 1966) clearly embraces the interpretation of the Cartesian cogito in Descartes’ famous dictum "I think therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum) as the solid foundation for knowledge. In contrast with for example the interpretation of the influential continental philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who teaches at the European Graduate School, who on the one hand defends the Cartesian subject, and on the other together with Kant and Lacan refuses the possibility of the cogito to be a substantial object - a subject whose conditions for seeing can simply be transparent. It is important to note the Cartesian cogito has been the source of major debates in the history of philosophy too big to go into here. Christopher Wises’ 2011 book Chomsky and Deconstruction: The Politics of Unconscious Knowledge argues inter alia that it is not just that continental philosophers write "gibberish," but that they they critique many of Chomsky’s central theoretical givens. Interestingly, Wise does this by exploring the historical constructions of Chomsky’s linguistics. He tries to show that the very Cartesian foundation of Chomsky’s thought makes his claims to of being free of the old problems of metaphysics untenable. Indeed the book attempts to draw the necessary links between Chomsky’s linguistics and his political views by making clear the philosophical points they have in common.
Today, continental philosophers reject what they deem to often be scientism because they work with the assumption that science itself is filled with interpretations as much as other discourses. Here language is typically associated with logic in the old Greek sense of the word, discourse or reason, and thus seeks to interrogate it. And not as the mathematical reasoning meaning of the word logic that is central to analytic philosophy. Which means that for critical philosophy language is seen as being historically constructed. So while for analytic philosophy, problems of philosophical nature can be analyzed apart from their historical background, continental philosophy instead cautions that philosophical arguments themselves cannot be considered as separated from the contextual conditions of what is deemed to be a historical origin. This means that unlike analytical philosophy, continental philosophy see theory and practice as being inseparable, thus making the work of philosophy itself very much a part of personal and political transformation. Indeed, it is somewhat ironic that the very link that Chomsky wants to find between his analytic philosophy and his politics seems more easily found in continental critical thought.
On a practical level, in analytical philosophy language is studied as a separate discipline, whereas in continental philosophy language is studied within its many branches, say from existentialism to deconstruction and beyond. If we consider how the two approach philosophy of mind, it is important to note that continental philosophy instead of putting much of the emphasis on logical analysis, it opens up the exploration to other forms of understanding of the human condition. Concepts of thought and perceptual experience are thus not treated only with analyses of linguistic forms, but include for example, the very content of experience beyond that of thinking logic, thus including historical logic as well.
Chomsky would direct the theoretical attack that made him famous against both behaviorism (B.F. Skinner), which had been the most prominent theory of mind in analytic philosophy for the first half of the 20th century, and against structural linguistics (Ferdinand de Saussure), which would become extremely influential to the second half of 20th century continental philosophy. While behaviorism had become incredibly popular by seeking to understand behavior and language as a function of environmental histories, on the other hand structural linguistics examined language not in terms of its use but focused instead on its universal underlying system independent of empirical, contingent features of language, looking at how its elements relate to one another today (synchronically) rather than over time (diachronically).
In further contrast to behaviorism, while Chomsky recognized that structural linguistics was useful for the analysis of finite and thus collectable number of units of language (phonology; morphology), he nevertheless attacked structural linguistics and said of it in 1972: "impoverished and thoroughly inadequate conception of language." Chomsky's key argument on structural linguistics is to show its inadequacy in explaining complex or ambiguous sentences. He demonstrated such analysis was insufficient for syntax, which is what Chomsky’s original research was focusing on, arguing that since an endless number of sentences can be uttered, it makes the collection of all of them impossible.
With generative grammar Chomsky suggested instead it is the linguist’s role is to create a small set of rules that can correctly generate all the combinations of words possible to form all the grammatical sentences of a language. He did that using an algorithm to predict all grammatically correct sentences. In particular contrast with behaviorism, Chomskyan revolutionary theory rests on the demonstrated assumption that many of the properties of language are in fact innate as well as the universality of its deep structures.
In addition to Chomsky’s classification of formal languages by their generative power (designated today as "Chomskyan Hierarchy"), he has authored several seminal texts in this field, including Syntactic Structures (1957), Aspects of Theory of Syntax (1965), Cartesian Linguistics (1966), Language and Mind (1968), The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1975) and many more articles on both this topic and his politics, publishing practically a book or more a year since 1968. His most recent linguistic work deals with the "minimalist program" in cognitive science.
On October 20th 2008, just before the November 4th historical election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, in an important interview Chomsky was asked who to vote for in swing states. Chomsky suggested that people vote for Obama, the "lesser of the two evils", without illusions. Arguably, Chomsky’s analysis is being proven right by history:
Well, I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions, because all the elevated rhetoric about change and hope and so on will dissolve into standard centrist Democratic policies if he takes office. However, there is a difference, and it's been studied quite closely by political scientists. There's a strong difference over time. You don't see it in any particular moment, but over time the general population, the large majority of the population other than the very wealthy, tends to do considerably better under Democratic than under Republican administrations. And the reason is sort of what you said: they reflect different elite constituencies, and the differences are quite striking and very noticeable. So if that's what matters to you, you know, that's usually a pretty good guy if you're voting. It's not that the Democrats represent public opinion. They don't. In fact, like the Republicans, they're pretty relatively right of public opinion on a host of major issues, including those of most importance to the public. In fact, what's happening now, it's interesting it's not being discussed. It's very striking; it tells you a lot about American democracy. For years, decades, in fact, one of the leading concerns, if not the top concern of the public, has been the health care system, which is understandable. It's a total catastrophe.
Several documentaries have been devoted to Chomsky including, most famously the 1992 Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. His books, conferences and various articles on the United States, capitalism, the media, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have made him a controversial figure and have earned him at times the condemnation of both liberal and conservative circles. This is perhaps especially true in France where the Jewish intelligentsia media leads a permanent campaign of vilification against him, accusing him of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial and preventing any debate about its work. This perhaps stemmed partly from the "Faurisson Affair" in which one of Chomsky's short texts was arguably misused. Indeed, former professor of literature at the University of Lyons in France, Robert Faurisson was suspended from his duties in the late 1970s and prosecuted because he had, inter alia, denied the existence of gas chambers during World War II. A petition to defend freedom of expression was then signed by more than five hundred people, including Chomsky. In response to reactions to his signing the petition, Chomsky wrote a short text in which he explained that defending the right of a person to express their views does not mean one shares them. Chomsky gave his text to then friend, Serge Thion, allowing him to use it at will. However Thion used it as an opinion piece at the very beginning of Faurisson’s 1980 book, making it look like Chomsky defended him and thus what he stood for. Chomsky repeatedly pointed out that he never intended to have that text be published in that way but that when he found out and tried to prevent it it was too late.
Noam Chomsky, who has often defined himself as an "socialist anarchist" has been since the 60s one of the most active and most famous American intellectuals of the Left. As a pacifist he was one of the main opponents to the Vietnam War in the late 60s and today to the American-Israeli policy in the Middle East. As a supporter of the international anarcho-syndicalist movement and as a member of the Industrial Workers of the World union (IWW), he has published numerous books critical of imperialism and the United States’ foreign policy as well as the role of the media in Western democratic societies.
As mentioned above, in those fields too he is the author of countless articles and books. Some of them include: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967). "Human Rights" and American Foreign Policy (1978). Pirates and Emperors: International Terrorism and the Real World (1986). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988). Terrorizing the Neighborhood: American Foreign Policy in the post-Cold War Era (1991). Democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality (1997). Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda (1997). Propaganda and the Public Mind (2001). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (2002). Power and Terror: Post-9/11 Talks and Interviews (2003). Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy: Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice (2006). Hopes and Prospects (2010). Making the Future: The Unipolar Imperial Moment (2010). Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians (2010).
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Bosnian War

$
0
0
Heavily damaged apartment buildings near Vrban...
The Bosnian War or the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1 March 1992 and 14 December 1995. The war involved several factions. The main belligerents were the forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and those of the self-proclaimed Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia, who were led and supplied by Serbia and Croatia respectively.[8][9][10]
The war came about as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Following the Slovenian and Croatian secessions from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991, the multi-ethnic Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was inhabited by MuslimBosniaks (44 percent), OrthodoxSerbs (31 percent) and CatholicCroats (17 percent), passed a referendum for independence on 29 February 1992. This was rejected by the political representatives of the Bosnian Serbs, who had boycotted the referendum and established their own republic. Following the declaration of independence, the Bosnian Serbs, supported by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milošević and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), mobilized their forces inside the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to secure Serbian territory, then war soon broke out across the country, accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak population, especially in eastern Bosnia.[11]
 
It was principally a territorial conflict, initially between the Serb forces mostly organized in the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) on the one side, and the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) which was largely composed of Bosniaks, and the Croat forces in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) on the other side. The Croats also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian.[12] The Serb and Croat political leadership agreed on a partition of Bosnia with the Karađorđevo and Graz agreements, resulting in the Croat forces turning against the ARBiH and the Croat-Bosniak war.[13] The war was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing and systematic mass rape, mostly led by Serb and, to a lesser extent, Croat[14][15][16][17] forces. Events such as the Siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre would become iconic of the conflict.
 
The Serbs, although initially superior due to the vast amount of weapons and resources provided by the JNA, eventually lost momentum as the Bosniaks and Croats allied themselves against the Republika Srpska in 1994 with the creation of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina following the Washington agreement. After the Srebrenica and Markale massacres, NATO intervened during the 1995 Operation Deliberate Force against the positions of the Army of the Republika Srpska, which proved key in ending the war.[18][19] The war was brought to an end after the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Paris on 14 December 1995. Peace negotiations were held in Dayton, Ohio, and were finalized on 21 December 1995. The accords are now known as the Dayton Agreement.[20] A 1995 report by the Central Intelligence Agency found that Bosnian Serb forces were responsible for 90% of the war crimes committed during the conflict.[21] As of early 2008, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had convicted 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks of war crimes in connection with the war in Bosnia.[22] The most recent figures suggest that around 100,000 people were killed during the war.[23][24] In addition, some 20,000 to 50,000 women were raped,[25] and over 2.2 million people were displaced,[26] making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II.
 
The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina came about as a result of the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Crisis emerged in Yugoslavia with the weakening of the Communist system at the end of the Cold War. In Yugoslavia, the national Communist party, officially called the Alliance or League of Communists of Yugoslavia, was losing its ideological potency. Meanwhile nationalism, after violence had broke out in Kosovo, experienced a renaissance in the 1980s.[27] While the goal of Serbian nationalists was the centralisation of Yugoslavia, other nationalities in Yugoslavia aspired to the federalisation and the decentralisation of the state.[28]
In March 1989, the crisis in Yugoslavia deepened after the adoption of amendments to the Serbian Constitution that allowed the government of Serbia to impose dominance over the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina.[29] Until that point, Kosovo and Vojvodina's decision-making had been independent and both autonomous provinces also had a vote at the Yugoslav federal level. Serbia, under newly elected President Slobodan Milošević, thus gained control over three out of eight votes in the Yugoslav presidency. With additional votes from Montenegro, Serbia was thus able to heavily influence decisions of the federal government. This situation led to objections in other republics and calls for the reform of the Yugoslav Federation.
 
At the 14th Extraordinary Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, on 20 January 1990, the delegations of the Republics could not agree on the main issues in the Yugoslav federation. As a result, the Slovenian and Croatian delegates left the Congress. The Slovenian delegation, headed by Milan Kučan demanded democratic changes and a looser federation, while the Serbian delegation, headed by Milošević, opposed it. This event is considered to have been the beginning of the end of Yugoslavia.
 
Moreover, nationalist parties attained power in other republics. Among them, the Croatian Franjo Tuđman's Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) was the most prominent. On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia adopted a new Constitution, taking away some of the rights of the Serbs granted by the previous Socialist constitution. This created grounds for nationalist action among the indigenous Serbs of Croatia. Closely following the adoption of the new constitution, Slovenia and Croatia began the process towards independence. On 25 June 1991, both Slovenia and Croatia declared independence which led to a short armed conflict in Slovenia called the Ten-Day War, and an all-out war in Croatia in the Croatian War of Independence in areas with substantial Serb populations. The Croatian War of Independence would result in U.N. Security Council Resolution 743 on 21 February 1992, which created the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in accordance with the Secretary-General's report S/23592 of 15 February 1992.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina, former Ottoman province, has historically been a multi-ethnic state. According to the 1991 census, 44% of the population considered themselves Muslim (Bosniak), 32.5% Serb and 17% Croat, with 6% describing themselves as Yugoslav.[30]
In the first multi-party election that took place in November 1990 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the three largest nationalist parties in the country won, the Party of Democratic Action, the Serbian Democratic Party and the Croatian Democratic Union.[31]
Parties divided the power along the ethnic lines so that the President of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a Bosniak, president of the Parliament was a Serb and the prime minister a Croat.
On 13 October 1991 Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić expressed his view about future of Bosnia and Bosnian Muslims: "In just a couple of days, Sarajevo will be gone and there will be five hundred thousand dead, in one month Muslims will be annihilated in Bosnia and Herzegovina".[32]

 Karađorđevo agreement

Discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević included "...the partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina between Serbia and Croatia."[33] were held as early as March 1991 known as Karađorđevo agreement. Following the declaration of independence of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs from B&H with support[citation needed] from Serbia, attacked different parts of the country. The state administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina effectively ceased to function having lost control over the entire territory. The Serbs wanted all lands where Serbs had a majority, eastern and western Bosnia. The Croats and their leader Franjo Tuđman also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian. The policies of the Republic of Croatia and its leader Franjo Tuđman towards Bosnia and Herzegovina were never totally transparent and always included Franjo Tuđman's ultimate aim of expanding Croatia's borders.[34] Bosniaks were an easy target, because the Bosnian government forces were poorly equipped and unprepared for the war.[15]

  Independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina

On 15 October 1991, the parliament of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo passed a "Memorandum on the Sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina" by a simple majority.[35][36] The Memorandum was hotly contested by the Bosnian Serb members of parliament, arguing that Amendment LXX of the Constitution required procedural safeguards and a 2/3 majority for such issues, but the Memorandum was debated anyway, leading to a boycott of the parliament by the Bosnian Serbs, and during the boycott the legislation was passed.[37]
The Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia in its Opinion No. 4 on Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina should not be recognized because the country had not yet held a referendum on independence.[38]
On 25 January 1992, an hour after the session of parliament was adjourned, the parliament called for a referendum on independence on 29 February and 1 March.[35]
The Bosnian Serbian assembly members invited the Serb population to boycott the referendums held on 29 February and 1 March 1992. The turnout to the referendums was reported as 63.7%, with 92.7% of voters voting in favour of independence (implying that Bosnian Serbs, which made up approximately 34% of the population, largely boycotted the referendum).[39] Independence was declared on 5 March 1992 by the parliament. The Serb political leadership used the referendums as a pretext to set up roadblocks in protest.

  Establishment of Republika Srpska

The Serb members of parliament, consisting mainly of the Serb Democratic Party members, but also including some other party representatives (which would form the "Independent Members of Parliament Caucus"), abandoned the central parliament in Sarajevo, and formed the Assembly of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 24 October 1991, which marked the end of the tri-ethnic coalition that governed after the elections in 1990.[40]
On 7 January 1992, the Serb members of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly and the presidents of the local Municipal Boards of the SDS proclaimed the Assembly of the Serbian People of the Municipality of Prijedor and implemented secret instructions that were issued earlier on 19 December 1991. The "Organisation and Activity of Organs of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances" provided a plan for the SDS take-over of municipalities in BiH, it also included plans for the creation of Crisis Staffs.[41]Milomir Stakić, later convicted by ICTY of mass crimes against humanity against Bosniak and Croat civilians, was elected President of this Assembly.[42]
On 9 January 1992, the Assembly of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted a declaration proclaiming the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ("SR BiH").[43]
On 17 January 1992, the Prijedor Serb Assembly endorsed joining the Serbian territories of the Municipality of Prijedor to the Autonomous Region of Bosnian Krajina in order to create a separate Serbian state in ethnic Serbian territories.[42]
On 28 February 1992, the Constitution of the SR BiH declared that the territory of that Republic included "the territories of the Serbian Autonomous Regions and Districts and of other Serbian ethnic entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the regions in which the Serbian people remained in the minority due to the genocide conducted against it in World War II", and it was declared to be a part of Yugoslavia.[41]
On 12 August 1992, the name of the SR BiH was changed to Republika Srpska ("RS").[41][43]

  Establishment of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia

The objectives of the nationalists from Croatia were shared by Croat nationalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[44] The ruling party in the Republic of Croatia, the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), organized and controlled the branch of the party in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the latter part of 1991, the more extreme elements of the party, under the leadership of Mate Boban, Dario Kordić, Jadranko Prlić, Ignac Koštroman and local leaders such as Anto Valenta,[44] and with the support of Franjo Tuđman and Gojko Šušak, had taken effective control of the party. This coincided with the peak of the Croatian War of Independence. On 18 November 1991, the party branch in Bosnia and Herzegovina, proclaimed the existence of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, as a separate "political, cultural, economic and territorial whole", on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[45]

  Carrington-Cutileiro Plan

The Lisbon Agreement, also known as the Carrington-Cutileiro plan, named for its creators Lord Carrington and Portuguese Ambassador José Cutileiro, resulted from the European Economic Community-hosted conference held in September 1991 in an attempt to prevent Bosnia and Herzegovina sliding into war. It proposed ethnic power-sharing on all administrative levels and the devolution of central government to local ethnic communities. However, all Bosnia and Herzegovina's districts would be classified as Bosniak, Serb or Croat under the plan, even where ethnic majority was not evident.
On 18 March 1992, all three sides signed the agreement; Alija Izetbegović for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Serbs and Mate Boban for the Croats.
However, on 28 March 1992, Izetbegović, after meeting with the then-US ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann in Sarajevo, withdrew his signature and declared his opposition to any type of ethnic division of Bosnia.
What was said and by whom remains unclear. Zimmerman denies that he told Izetbegovic that if he withdrew his signature, the United States would grant recognition to Bosnia as an independent state. What is indisputable is that Izetbegovic, that same day, withdrew his signature and renounced the agreement.[46]

 Arms Embargo

On 25 September 1991, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 713 imposing an arms embargo on all of the former-Yugoslavia. The embargo hurt the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina the most because the Republic of Serbia inherited the lion's share of the Yugoslav People Army's arsenal and the Croatian Army could smuggle weapons through its coast. Over 55% of the armories and barracks of the former Yugoslavia were located in Bosnia owing to its mountainous terrain, in anticipation of a guerrilla war, but many of those factories were under Serb control (such as the UNIS PRETIS factory in Vogošća), and others were inoperable due to a lack of electricity and raw materials. The Bosnian government lobbied to have the embargo lifted but that was opposed by the United Kingdom, France and Russia. US proposals to pursue this policy were known as lift and strike. The US congress passed two resolutions calling for the embargo to be lifted but both were vetoed by President Bill Clinton for fear of creating a rift between the US and the aforementioned countries. Nonetheless, the United States used both "black" C-130 transports and back channels including Islamist groups to smuggle weapons to Bosnian-Muslim forces via Croatia.[47]
War in Herzegovina
The Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia took control of many municipal governments and services in Herzegovina as well, removing or marginalising local Bosniak leaders. Herzeg-Bosnia took control of the media and imposed Croatian ideas and propaganda. Croatian symbols and currency were introduced, and Croatian curricula and the Croatian language were introduced in schools. Many Bosniaks and Serbs were removed from positions in government and private business; humanitarian aid was managed and distributed to the Bosniaks' and Serbs' disadvantage; and Bosniaks in general were increasingly harassed. Many of them were deported into concentration camps: Heliodrom, Dretelj, Gabela, Vojno and Šunje.
Up until 1993 the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) and Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) had been fighting side by side against the superior forces of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) in some areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even though armed confrontation and events like the Totic kidnappings strained the relationship between the HVO and ARBiH the Croat-Bosniak alliance held in Bihać pocket (northwest Bosnia) and the Bosanska Posavina (north), where both were heavily outmatched by Serb forces.
According to ICTY judgment in Naletilić-Martinović case HVO forces attacked the villages of Sovici and Doljani, about 50 kilometers north of Mostar in the morning on 17 April 1993.[15] The attack was part of a larger HVO offensive aimed at taking Jablanica, the main Bosnian Muslim dominated town in the area. The HVO commanders had calculated that they needed two days to take Jablanica. The location of Sovici was of strategic significance for the HVO as it was on the way to Jablanica. For the ARBiH it was a gateway to the plateau of Risovac, which could create conditions for further progression towards the Adriatic coast. The larger HVO offensive on Jablanica had already started on 15 April 1993. The artillery destroyed the upper part of Sovici. The Bosnian Army was fighting back, but at about five p.m. the Bosnian Army commander in Sovici, surrendered. Approximately 70 to 75 soldiers surrendered. In total, at least 400 Bosnian Muslim civilians were detained. The HVO advance towards Jablanica was halted after a cease-fire agreement had been negotiated.[15]

  Siege of Mostar

The Eastern part of Mostar was surrounded by HVO forces for nine months, and much of its historic city was severely damaged in shelling including the famous Stari Most bridge.[45]
Mostar was divided into a Western part, which was dominated by the HVO forces and an Eastern part where the ARBiH was largely concentrated. However, the Bosnian Army had its headquarters in West Mostar in the basement of a building complex referred to as Vranica. In the early hours of 9 May 1993, the Croatian Defence Council attacked Mostar using artillery, mortars, heavy weapons and small arms. The HVO controlled all roads leading into Mostar and international organisations were denied access. Radio Mostar announced that all Bosniaks should hang out a white flag from their windows. The HVO attack had been well prepared and planned.[15]
The HVO took over the west side of the city and expelled thousands of Bosniaks from the west side into the east side of the city.[45] The HVO shelling reduced much of the east side of Mostar to rubble. The JNA demolished Carinski Bridge, Titov Bridge and Lucki Bridge over the river excluding the Stari Most. HVO forces (and its smaller divisions) engaged in a mass execution, ethnic cleansing and rape on the Bosniak people of the West Mostar and its surroundings and a fierce siege and shelling campaign on the Bosnian Government run East Mostar. HVO campaign resulted in thousands of injured and killed.[45]
The ARBiH launched an operation known as Operation Neretva '93 against the HVO and Croatian Army in September 1993 to end the siege of Mostar, and recapture areas of Herzegovina that were included in the self-proclaimed Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia.[74] The operation was stopped by Bosnian authorities after it received information about the massacre against Croat civilians and POWs in the villages of Grabovica and Uzdol.
The HVO leadership (Jadranko Prlić, Bruno Stojić, Milivoj Petković, Valentin Ćorić and Berislav Pušić) and the Croatian Army officer Slobodan Praljak are presently on trial at the ICTY on charges including crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and violations of the laws or customs of war.[45]Dario Kordić, political leader of Croats in Central Bosnia was convicted of the crimes against humanity in Central Bosnia, i.e. ethnic cleansing and sentenced to 25 years in prison.[16] ARBiH commander Sefer Halilović was charged with one count of violation of the laws and customs of war on the basis of superior criminal responsibility of the incidents during Operation Neretva '93 and found not guilty.
In an attempt to protect the civilians, UNPROFOR's role was further extended in May 1993 to protect the "safe havens" that United Nations Security Council had declared around Sarajevo, Goražde, Srebrenica, Tuzla, Žepa and Bihać in Resolution 824 of 6 May 1993. On 4 June 1993 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 836 authorized the use of force by UNPROFOR in the protection of the safe zones.[75] On 15 June 1993, Operation Sharp Guard, a naval blockade in the Adriatic Sea by NATO and the Western European Union, began but was lifted on 18 June 1996 on termination of the UN arms embargo.[75]
UNPROFOR and NATO
NATO became actively involved, when its jets shot down four Serb aircraft over central Bosnia on 28 February 1994 for violating the UN no-fly zone.[81]
On 12 March 1994, the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) made its first request for NATO air support, but close air support was not deployed, however, owing to a number of delays associated with the approval process.[82] On 20 March an aid convoy with medical supplies and doctors reached Maglaj, a city of 100,000 people, which had been under siege since May 1993 and had been surviving off food supplies dropped by US aircraft.[80] A second convoy on 23 March was hijacked and looted.[80]
On 10 and 11 April 1994 UNPROFOR called in air strikes to protect the Goraždesafe area, resulting in the bombing of a Serbian military command outpost near Goražde by 2 US F-16 jets.[75][80][82] This was the first time in NATO's history it had ever done so.[80] This resulted in the taking of 150 U.N. personnel hostage on 14 April.[75][82] On 16 April a British Sea Harrier was shot down over Goražde by Serb forces.[80] On 15 April the Bosnian government lines around Goražde broke.[80]
Around 29 April a Danish contingent (Nordbat 2) on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia, as part of UNPROFOR's Nordic battalion located in Tuzla, was ambushed when trying to relieve a Swedish observation post (Tango 2) that was under heavy artillery fire by the Bosnian SerbŠekovići brigade at the village of Kalesija, but the ambush was dispersed when the UN forces retaliated with heavy fire in what would be known as Operation Bøllebank.
On 12 May, the US Senate adopted S. 2042 from Sen. Bob Dole to unilaterally lift the arms embargo against the Bosnians, but was repudiated by President Clinton.[83][84]Pub.L. 103–337 was signed by the President on 5 October 1994 and stated that if the Bosnian Serbs had not accepted the Contact Group proposal by 15 October the President should introduce a UN Security Council proposal to end the arms embargo and that if it was not passed by 15 November only funds required by all UN members under Resolution 713 could be used to enforce the embargo, effectively ending the arms embargo.[85]
On 5 August, at the request of UNPROFOR, NATO aircraft attacked a target within the Sarajevo Exclusion Zone after weapons were seized by Bosnian Serbs from a weapons collection site near Sarajevo.[75] On 22 September 1994 NATO aircraft carried out an air strike against a Bosnian Serb tank at the request of UNPROFOR.[75]
On 12–13 November, the US unilaterally lifted the arms embargo against the government of Bosnia.[85][86]
Operation Amanda was an UNPROFOR mission led by Danish peacekeeping troops, with the aim of recovering an observation post near Gradačac, Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 25 October 1994.[87]
On 19 November the North Atlantic Council approved the extension of Close Air Support to Croatia for the protection of UN forces in that country.[75] NATO aircraft attacked the Udbina airfield in Serb-held Croatia on 21 November, in response to attacks launched from that airfield against targets in the Bihac area of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[75] On 23 November, after attacks launched from a surface-to-air missile site south of Otoka (north-west Bosnia and Herzegovina) on two NATO aircraft, air strikes were conducted against air defence radars in that area.[75]
Books
Aubrey Verboven's Border Crossings - An Aid Worker's Journey into Bosnia provides one of the most detailed chronicles of the war in the Bihac Pocket.
Semezdin Mehmedinović's Sarajevo Blues and Miljenko Jergović's Sarajevo Marlboro are among the best known and critically praised books written during the war in Bosnia.
Zlata's Diary is a published diary kept by a young girl, Zlata Filipović, which chronicles her life in Sarajevo from 1991 to 1993. Because of her diary, she is sometimes referred to as "The Anne Frank of Sarajevo".
"Remember Sarajevo" by Roger M. Richards, is an eBook of photographs and text from the siege of Sarajevo.
Plays about the war include Necessary Targets, written by Eve Ensler. It has also been suggested that "Caryl Churchill"'s Far Away is a response to the Bosnian War.
A book on the Bosnian War called My WarGone by, I Miss it so by Anthony Loyd depicts the view of a freelance war photographer.
Winter Warriors – Across Bosnia with the PBI by Les Howard, is a factual account of a British Territorial (reserve) infantry soldier who volunteered to serve as a UN Peacekeeper in the latter stages of the war, and also during the first stages of the NATO led Dayton Peace Accord. This critically acclaimed work gives an in depth feel to the perils of peacekeeping, the harsh landscape and the resolve of the British soldier, a much overlooked quality that contributed to a lasting peace.
Pretty Birds, by Scott Simon, depicts a teenage girl in Sarajevo, once a basketball player on her high school team, becomes a sniper.
The Cellist of Sarajevo, by Steven Galloway, is a novel following the stories of four people living in Sarajevo during the war.
Life's Too Short to Forgive, written in 2005 by Len Biser, follows the efforts of three people—a courageous Bosnian woman soldier, a former UNPROFOR Lieutenant, and a private citizen—who unite to assassinate Karadzic to stop Serb atrocities.
Fools Rush In, written by Bill Carter, tells a story of a man who helped bring U2 to a landmark Sarajevo concert.
Evil Doesn't Live Here, by Daoud Sarhandi and Alina Boboc, presents a large number of posters portraying the war, from all sides in the conflict and many regions throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The Avenger by Frederick Forsyth.
Balkan, In Memoriam, by Sandra Balsells, a testimonial stirred about the evolution of the old Yugoslavia since the disintegration of the country in 1991 until the fall of Milosevic in 2000.
"Hotel Sarajevo" by Jack Kersh
Top je bio vreo by Vladimir Kecmanović, a story of a Bosnian Serb boy in the part of Sarajevo held by Bosnian Muslim forces during the Siege of Sarajevo.
I Bog je zaplakao nad Bosnom (And God cried over Bosnia), written by Momir Krsmanović, is a depiction of war that mainly focuses on the crimes committed by Muslim people.
The war in Eastern Bosnia is a subject of Joe Sacco's graphic novel Safe Area Goražde.
Dampyr is an Italian comic book, created by Mauro Boselli and Maurizio Colombo and published in Italy by Sergio Bonelli Editore about Harlan Draka, half human, half vampire, who wages war on the multifaceted forces of Evil. The first two episodes are located in Bosnia and Herzegovina (#1 Il figlio del Diavolo) i.e. Sarajevo (#2 La stirpe della note) during the Bosnian war.
"Blasted", by playwright Sarah Kane, is in part about the Bosnian War.
Goodbye Sarajevo – A True Story of Courage, Love and Survival by Atka Reid and Hana Schofield and published in 2011, is the story of two sisters from Sarajevo and their separate experiences of the war.
Love Thy Neighbor: A Story of War by Peter Maas, published in 1997 is his account as a reporter at the height of the Bosnian War. This book examines, with scathing inquiry, the horrors and desperation suffered by the Bosnian people.
"Bluebird: A Memoir" By Vensa Maric are the recently published memoir's of the authors experiences as a refugee during the Bosnian war, when she was sent to England to escape the conflict.

[edit]Photography

The 2006 Annie Leibovitz collection, A Photographer's Life, includes photographs of Sarajevo during this period. "Return with Honor" by: Captain Scott O'Grady.
1994, Bosnia, War in Europe – Images by Wolfgang Bellwinkel and Peter Maria Schäfer, expose

  Music

U2's Miss Sarajevo is among the best known pieces of music about the war in Bosnia. The song features Bono and Luciano Pavarotti, and is a song that Bono cites as his favourite.[167] Other songs include "Bosnia" by The Cranberries.
Savatage recorded a concept album entitled Dead Winter Dead, which was set in the Balkan War. One of the songs from this album, "Christmas Eve in Sarajevo", also appears on the first album by the Trans Siberian Orchestra.[168]
In State Radio's album titled Let It Go, the song Bohemian Grove references the war, saying in the first verse, "Could've stopped Sarajevo, we must confess, but we were planning our next invasion."
Nirvana had created a benefit show for the rape victims of Croatia. The bassist, Krist Novoselic is of Croatian background so this was personal. Frontman, Kurt Cobain had previously written an anti-rape song (Rape Me) and about a rape victim (Polly) both of which they had played at the show.

 Other media

Niko Bellic, the protagonist of Grand Theft Auto IV, fought in the Bosnian war before his immigration to the United States
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Siege of Sarajevo

$
0
0
A cello player in the partially destroyed Nati...
 
The Siege of Sarajevo was the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare.[7] After being initially besieged by the forces of the Yugoslav People's Army, Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was besieged by the Army of Republika Srpska from 5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996 during the Bosnian War. The siege lasted three times longer than the Siege of Stalingrad and a year longer than the Siege of Leningrad.[8]
 
After Bosnia and Herzegovina had declared independence from Yugoslavia, the Bosnian Serbs—whose strategic goal was to create a new Bosnian Serb state of Republika Srpska (RS) that would include parts of Bosnian territory[9]—encircled Sarajevo with a siege force of 13,000 stationed in the surrounding hills. From there they assaulted the city with weapons that included artillery, mortars, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, heavy machine-guns, multiple rocket launchers, rocket-launched aircraft bombs and sniper rifles.[10] From 2 May 1992, the Serbs blockaded the city. The Bosnian government defence forces inside the besieged city were poorly equipped and unable to break the siege.
 
It is estimated that 11,000 civilians were killed or went missing in the city, including over 1,500 children. An additional 56,000 people were wounded, including nearly 15,000 children.[6] The 1991 census indicates that before the siege the city and its surrounding areas had a population of 525,980. There are estimates that prior to the siege the population in the city proper was 435,000. The current estimates of the number of persons living in Sarajevo range from between 300,000 to 380,000.[6]
After the war, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted two Serb officials for numerous counts of crimes against humanity committed during the siege. Stanislav Galić[11] and Dragomir Milošević[12] were sentenced to life imprisonment and 29 years imprisonment respectively, while Momčilo Perišić received a 27 year-sentence,[13] before being released on appeal in February 2013.[14] One of the 11 indictments against Radovan Karadžić, the former president of the Republika Srpska, is for the siege.[15] In the case against Stanislav Galić, the prosecution alleged in an opening statement that:
 
Background
From its creation following World War II, the government of Yugoslavia kept a close watch on nationalist sentiment among the many ethnic and religious groups that composed the country, as it could have led to chaos and the breakup of the state. When Yugoslavia's longtime leader Marshal Tito died in 1980 this policy of containment underwent a dramatic reversal.
Nationalism, after violence had erupted in Kosovo, experienced a renaissance in the 1980s.[17] While the goal of Serbian nationalists was the centralisation of Yugoslavia, other nationalities in Yugoslavia aspired to the federalisation and the decentralisation of the state.[18]
On 18 November 1990, the first multi-party parliamentary elections were held in Bosnia and Herzegovina (with a 2nd round on 25 November), which resulted in a national assembly dominated by three ethnically based parties, which had formed a loose coalition to oust the communists from power.[19]Croatia and Slovenia's subsequent declarations of independence and the warfare that ensued placed Bosnia and Herzegovina and its three constituent peoples in an awkward position. A significant split soon developed on the issue of whether to stay with the Yugoslav federation (overwhelmingly favored among Serbs) or to seek independence (overwhelmingly favored among Bosniaks and Croats).
 
The Serb members of parliament, consisting mainly of Serb Democratic Party members, abandoned the central parliament in Sarajevo, and formed the Assembly of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 24 October 1991, which marked the end of the tri-ethnic coalition that governed after the elections in 1990. This Assembly established the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 9 January 1992, which became the Republika Srpska in August 1992.
A declaration of Bosnian sovereignty on 15 October 1991 was followed by a referendum for independence from Yugoslavia on 29 February and 1 March 1992. This referendum was boycotted by the vast majority of the Serbs. The turnout in the independence referendum was 63.4% and 99.7% of voters voted for independence.[20] Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence on 3 March 1992. Following a tense period of escalating tensions the opening shots in the incipient Bosnian conflict were fired when Serb paramilitary forces attacked Bosnian Croat villages around Capljina on 7 March 1992 and around Bosanski Brod and Bosniak town Goražde on 15 March. These minor attacks were followed by much more serious Serb artillery attacks on Neum on 19 March, on Bosanski Brod on 24 and 30 March 1992 on Bijeljina.

 Start of the war

On 2 March 1992, Serb paramilitaries set up barricades and sniper positions near Sarajevo's parliament building, but the threatened military coup d'état was thwarted by thousands of Sarajevo citizens who took to the streets in front of the snipers.[21]
Following the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina's declaration of independence from Yugoslavia on 3 March 1992, sporadic fighting broke out between Serbs and government forces all across the territory. It continued through the run-up to Bosnia and Herzegovina's recognition as an independent state.[22]
 
On 5 April, ethnic Serb policemen attacked police stations and then an Interior Ministry training school. The attack killed two officers and one civilian. The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared a state of emergency the following day.[22] Later that day, Serb paramilitaries in Sarajevo repeated their action of the previous month. A crowd of peace marchers, between 50,000 and 100,000 comprising all ethnic groups, rallied in protest.[21] As the largest section moved towards the parliament building, gunmen shot and killed two young women in the crowd, Suada Dilberović and Olga Sučić. They are regarded as the first casualties of the siege.[23] Vrbanja Bridge, where they were killed, has since been renamed in their honor.
On 6 April, twelve European Community foreign ministers announced that their countries would recognize the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[24] Recognition by the United States followed the next day.[22] Shortly after this, armed conflict broke out. The Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) attacked the Ministry of Training Academy in Vrace, the central tramway depot and the Old Town district with mortars, artillery and tank fire, and also seized control of Sarajevo's airport.[11] The Bosnian government had expected the international community to deploy a peacekeeping force following recognition, but it did not materialize in time to prevent war from breaking out across the country.
 
In the months leading up to the war, JNA forces in the region began to mobilize in the hills surrounding Sarajevo. Artillery, together with other ordnance and equipment that would prove key in the coming siege of the city, was deployed at this time. In April 1992, the Bosnian government under President Alija Izetbegović demanded that the government of Yugoslavia remove these forces. Slobodan Milošević, the president of Serbia, agreed only to withdraw individuals who originated from outside Bosnia's borders, an insignificant number.[6] JNA soldiers who were ethnic Serbs from Bosnia were transferred to the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić, with the VRS having rescinded its allegiance to Bosnia a few days after Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia.[citation needed]
 
On 2 May 1992, Bosnian Serb forces established a total blockade of the city. They blocked the major access roads, cutting supplies of food and medicine, and also cut off the city's utilities (e.g., water, electricity and heating). Although they possessed superior weaponry they were greatly outnumbered by ARBiH soldiers who were defending the city. After numerous JNA armored columns failed to take the city, the Serbs began to concentrate their efforts on weakening it by using continual bombardment from at least 200 reinforced positions and bunkers in the surrounding hills.[citation needed]
On 3 May 1992, members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) attacked a convoy of withdrawing Yugoslav National Army (JNA) soldiers on Dobrovoljačka Street in Sarajevo, killing 6 and wounding many more.[26] The attack is thought to have been in retaliation for the arrest of Bosnia's Muslim President Alija Izetbegović, who was detained at Sarajevo Airport by Yugoslav police the previous day.[27]
 
On 30 August 1992, an artillery shell crashed into a crowded marketplace on the western edge of Sarajevo. The resulting explosion killed 15 people and wounded 100 others. After the attack, foreign observers asserted that Bosnian Muslim troops had deliberately fired artillery against areas populated by their own civilians in an effort to draw international condemnation of the Serbs and foreign support.[28]
 
On 8 January 1993, Hakija Turajlić, the Deputy Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was assassinated by a Bosnian Serb soldier.[29] Turajlić, who had gone to Sarajevo airport to greet a Turkish delegation, was returning to the city in a United Nations armored vehicle that had taken him there when a force of two tanks and 40–50 Bosnian Serb soldiers blocked the road and accused the three French soldiers manning the vehicle of transporting "Turkish mujahedeen". In the shooting, six of the seven bullets fired at Turajlić struck him in the chest and arms and he was killed instantly.[30] A Bosnian Serb soldier, Goran Vasić, was eventually charged with Turajlić's murder but was ultimately acquitted of that charge in 2002.[31]
 
A large number of Sarajevans were killed or wounded throughout the siege.[6] A report on the total number of deaths over a span of 315 days concluded that 2,474 persons died, with an average of approximately eight killed in the city per day.[6] A report on the total number of persons wounded over a span of 306 days concluded that 13,472 were wounded, an average of approximately 44 per day.[6] It should be noted that actual daily casualty numbers in Sarajevo are probably higher than reported, as the varied centralized city casualty counts relied upon may not include many victims who were taken to district morgues and clinics.[citation needed]
 
The number of people killed or missing in the city is estimated at nearly 10,000. This includes over 1,500 children. An additional 56,000 people were wounded, including nearly 15,000 children.[6] The 1991 census indicates that before the siege the city and its surrounding areas had a population of 525,980. There are estimates that prior to the siege the population in the city proper was 435,000. Estimates of the current population range between 300,000 and 380,000.[6]
Many Serb civilians living in Sarajevo were killed during the siege by Bosnian Serb rocket and sniper-fire. Of the more than 11,000 Sarajevo civilians killed during the siege, it is estimated that approximately a quarter were Serbs.[49]
 
The siege affected all sectors of Sarajevo's population. UNICEF reported that of the estimated 65,000 to 80,000 children in the city, at least 40% had been directly shot at by snipers; 51% had seen someone killed; 39% had seen one or more family members killed; 19% had witnessed a massacre; 48% had their home occupied by someone else; 73% had their home attacked or shelled; and 89% had lived in underground shelters. It is probable that the psychological trauma suffered during the siege will bear heavily on the lives of these children in the years to come.[6]
 
ICTY convictions
On 5 December 2003 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted the first commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, General Stanislav Galić, of the shelling and sniper terror campaign against Sarajevo, including the first Markale massacre.[11] Galić was sentenced to life imprisonment for the crimes against humanity during the siege.[11] In 2007, General Dragomir Milošević,[12] who replaced Galić as commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, was found guilty of the shelling and sniper terror campaign against Sarajevo and its citizens from August 1994 to late 1995, including the second Markale massacre. He was sentenced to 29 years in prison. The ICTY concluded that the Markale town market was hit on 28 August 1995 by a 120 mm mortar shell fired from Sarajevo-Romanija Corps positions.[12]
 
In 2011, the former Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army, General Momčilo Perišić, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for aiding and abetting murder because the Yugoslav army under his supervision provided "large-scale logistic support in ammunition, fuel and spare parts" as well as "necessary expert assistance" to the VRS during the siege.[13] According to an estimate of the Main Staff from 1994, the VRS received about 25 million bullets and over 7,500 shells from the Yugoslav army to wage the war in Bosnia. However, the judges ruled that Perišić did not have effective control over the VRS officers, who largely fought independently of his instructions yet still received payment and benefits from Belgrade.[52]

  In popular culture

 Comics

[edit]Songs and Concerts

 Musicals and Operas

  Plays

  Poetry

 Books and Stories

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ratko Mladić

$
0
0
Ratko Mladić, who is in the custody of the Int...
Ratko Mladić, who is in the custody of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia  
Ratko Mladić (Serbian Cyrillic: Ратко Младић, pronounced [râtkɔ mlǎːditɕ]; born 12 March 1942)[1][2][3] is a Bosnian Serb former military leader accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. On 31 May 2011, Mladić was extradited to The Hague, where he was processed at the detention center that holds suspects for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).[4] His trial formally began in the Hague on 16 May 2012.
 
Mladić came to prominence in the Yugoslav Wars, initially as a high-ranking officer of the Yugoslav People's Army and subsequently as the Chief of Staff of the Army of the Republika Srpska (the Bosnian Serb Army) in the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. In 1995, he was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As the top military general with command responsibility, Mladić was accused by the ICTY of being responsible for the Siege of Sarajevo (5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996) and the Srebrenica massacre[5]—the largest mass murder in Europe since the immediate aftermath of World War II. He has often been referred to by Western media as the "Butcher of Bosnia,"[6][7][8] a title also sometimes applied to Radovan Karadžić, the former President of Republika Srpska.[9][10][11]
 
In July 1996 the Trial Chamber of the ICTY, proceeding in the absence of Mladić under the ICTY's Rule 61, confirmed all counts of the original indictments, finding there were reasonable grounds to believe he had committed the alleged crimes, and issued an international arrest warrant.[12]Serbia and the United States offered €5 million for information leading to Mladić's capture and arrest.[13] In October 2010, Serbia intensified the hunt by increasing the reward for Mladić's capture from €5 million to €10 million.[14] Mladić nevertheless managed to remain at large for nearly sixteen years, sheltered by Serb security forces and by family. On 26 May 2011, he was arrested in Lazarevo, Serbia.[15] His capture was considered to be one of the pre-conditions for Serbia being awarded candidate status for European Union membership.[16][17]
A long-time member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Mladić began his career in the Yugoslav People's Army in 1965 and had an undistinguished career in Yugoslavia until the outbreak of the Yugoslav Wars in 1991.[18][19]
 
Early life and military career
Mladić was born in the village of Božanovići located near Mount Treskavica, southeast of Sarajevo, in the municipality of Kalinovik west of Goražde[20] on 12 March 1942.[21] His father Neđa (1909–1945) was a member of the Yugoslav Partisans, and his mother Stana (née Lalović; 1919–2003) raised the three children by herself; daughter Milica (born 1940), sons Ratko and Milivoje (1944–2001), after the death of the father. Bosnia and Herzergovina was at the time part of the short-lived Independent State of Croatia, a fascist puppet-state led by the Croatian Ustaša, created after Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy invaded and partitioned the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1941. Mladić's father was killed while leading a partisan attack on the home village of Ustaša leader Ante Pavelić in 1945.[22]
 
Upon finishing elementary school, Mladić worked in Sarajevo as a whitesmith in the "Tito company". He entered the Military Industry School in Zemun in 1961, and then went on to the KOV Military Academy, and then Officers Academy. Upon his graduating on 27 September 1965, he started his work in the Yugoslav Army. The same year, he joined the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, remaining a member until the party disintegrated in 1990.[18] He began his first post as an officer in Skopje on 4 November 1965, where he was the youngest soldier in the unit which he commanded. Beginning with the rank of second lieutenant (April 1968), he proved himself to be a capable officer, first commanding a platoon (May 1970), then a battalion (27 November 1974), and then a brigade. In September 1976, he began his higher military education at the "Komandno-štabne akademije" in Belgrade, finishing in first place with a grade of 9,57 (out of 10). On 25 December 1980, he became a Lieutenant colonel, and in 18 August 1986 he became a colonel, based in Štip. He finished an additional year of military education in September 1986. On 31 January 1989, he was promoted to the post of head of the Education Department of the Third Military District of Skopje.[23] On 14 January 1991, he was once more promoted, as Deputy Commander in Priština.
 
In June 1991, Mladić was promoted to Deputy Commander of the Priština Corps in Kosovo at a time of high tension between Serbs and Kosovo's majority Albanian population. That year, Ratko Mladić was given command of the 9th Corps of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), and led this formation against Croatian forces in Knin, the capital of the self-declared Republic of Serbian Krajina.[24] On 4 October 1991, he was promoted to Major General. The JNA forces under his command participated in the Croatian War, notably during Operation Coast-91 in an attempt to cut off Dalmatia from the rest of Croatia, which resulted in a stalemate (Croatia held entire coastline near Zadar and Šibenik, while Serb Krajina expanded its territory in the hinterland). Among other early operations, Mladić aided Milan Martić's militia in overtaking the village of Kijevo.
 
On 24 April 1992, Mladić was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel General. On 2 May 1992, one month after the Bosnian Republic's declaration of independence, Mladić and his generals blockaded the city of Sarajevo, shutting off all traffic in and out of the city, as well as water and electricity. This began the four-year Siege of Sarajevo, the longest siege in the history of modern warfare. The city was bombarded with shells and sniper shooting. On 9 May 1992, he assumed the post of Chief of Staff/Deputy Commander of the Second Military District Headquarters of the JNA in Sarajevo. The next day, Mladić assumed the command of the Second Military District Headquarters of the JNA.
 
On 12 May 1992, in response to Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia, the Bosnian Serb Parliament voted to create the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS, in short). At the same time, Mladić was appointed Commander of the Main Staff of the VRS, a position he held until December 1996. In May 1992, after the withdrawal of JNA forces from Bosnia, the JNA Second Military District became the nucleus of the Main Staff of the VRS. On 24 June 1994, he was promoted to the rank of Colonel General over approximately 80,000 troops stationed in the area.
 
In July 1995, troops commanded by Mladić, harried by NATO air strikes intended to force compliance with a UN ultimatum to remove heavy weapons from the Sarajevo area, overran and occupied the UN safe areas of Srebrenica and Žepa. At Srebrenica over 40,000 Bosniaks who had sought safety there were expelled. An estimated 8,300 were murdered, allegedly on Mladić's order.[25][26] In November 1995, when Judge Fouad Riad indicted Mladić of genocide in Srebrenica at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague (ICTY), he stated that the events were "Truly scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history".[27]
 
On 4 August 1995, with a huge Croatian military force poised to attack the Serb-held region in central Croatia, Radovan Karadžić announced he was removing Mladić from his post and assuming personal command of the VRS himself. Karadžić blamed Mladić for the loss of two key Serb towns in western Bosnia that had recently fallen to the Croatian army, and he used the loss of the towns as an excuse to announce his surprising changes in the command structure.[28] Mladić was demoted to an "adviser". He refused to go quietly, claiming the support of both the Bosnian Serb military as well as the people. Karadžić countered by denouncing Mladić as a "madman" and attempting to remove his political rank, but Mladić's obvious popular support forced Karadžić to rescind his order on 11 August.[29]
On 8 November 1996, the President of the Bosnian Serb Republic, Biljana Plavšić, dismissed Mladić from his post. He continued to receive a pension until November 2005.[30]

  Indictment by the ICTY

On 24 July 1995, Mladić was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for genocide, crimes against humanity, and numerous war crimes (including crimes relating to the alleged sniping campaign against civilians in Sarajevo). On 16 November 1995, the charges were expanded to include charges of war crimes for the attack on the UN-declared safe area of Srebrenica in July 1995.
 
A fugitive from the ICTY, he was suspected to be hiding either in Serbia or in Republika Srpska. Mladić was reportedly seen attending a football match between China and Yugoslavia in Belgrade in March 2000. He entered through a VIP entrance and sat in a private box surrounded by eight armed bodyguards. There were claims that he had been seen in a suburb of Moscow, and that he "regularly" visited Thessaloniki and Athens, which raised suspicions that numerous fake reports were sent to cover his trail. Some reports said that he took refuge in his wartime bunker in Han Pijesak, not far from Sarajevo, or in Montenegro.[24] In early February 2006, portions of a Serbian military intelligence report were leaked to the Serbian Newspaper Politika which stated that Mladić had been hidden in Army of Republika Srpska and Yugoslav People's Army facilities up until 1 June 2002, when the National Assembly of Serbia passed a law mandating cooperation with the ICTY in The Hague.[31] The then-Chief General of the Yugoslav Army Nebojša Pavković requested that Mladić vacate the facility where he was staying on mountain Povlen, near Valjevo, after which the Serb military agencies claim to have lost all trace of him.
 
Initially, Mladić lived freely in Belgrade[32] After the arrest of Slobodan Milošević in 2001, Mladić went into hiding, but he was still protected by Serb security services and the army. Serbia's failure to bring Mladic to justice seriously harmed its relationship with the European union.[33]
In 2004, Paddy Ashdown, the then High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, removed the 58 officials from their post due to suspicions that they helped war crimes suspects including Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić to evade capture. Some officials were subjected to travel bans and had their bank accounts frozen. The ban was later lifted after the capture of Mladić.[34]
 
In November 2004, British defence officials conceded that military action was unlikely to be successful in bringing Mladić and other suspects to trial. One winter’s day British UN troops carrying side arms were confronted by the general skiing down the piste at Sarajevo’s former Olympic skiing resort but made no move for their guns; skiing behind Mladić were four bodyguards. Despite his Hague warrant, they decided to carry on skiing. NATO later sent commandos to arrest various war crimes suspects, but Mladić simply went underground. No amount of NATO action or UN demands, or even a $5 million bounty announced by Washington, could bring him in.[35]
 
It was revealed in December 2004 that the Army of Republika Srpska had been harboring and protecting Ratko Mladić until the summer of 2004, despite repeated and public pleas to collaborate with the ICTY and apprehend war criminals. On 6 December, NATO said that Mladić visited his wartime bunker during the summer in order to celebrate the Army of Republika Srpska-day.[31]
In June 2005 The Times newspaper alleged that Mladić had demanded a $5 million (£2.75 million) "compensation" to be given to his family and bodyguards if he gave himself up to the ICTY in the Hague.
 
In January 2006, a Belgrade court indicted 10 people for aiding Mladić in hiding from 2002 to January 2006. An investigation showed Mladić spent his time in New Belgrade, a suburb of the capital.[31]
 
It was erroneously reported on 21 February 2006 that Mladić had been arrested in Belgrade and was being transferred via the northeastern Bosnian city of Tuzla to the ICTY war tribunal.[36] The arrest was denied by the Serbian government. The government did not deny rumors of a planned negotiated surrender between Mladić and Serbian Special Forces. Romanian government and Serbian sources claimed on 22 February 2006 that Mladić was arrested in Romania, near Drobeta-Turnu Severin, close to the Serbian border by a joint Romanian-British special operation carried out by troops of those respective countries.[37] However, ICTY Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte denied the rumors that Mladić had been arrested, saying that they had "absolutely no basis whatsoever". She urged the Serbian government to find him without further delay, saying that Mladić was in reach of the Serbian authorities and had been in Serbia since 1998. She said that failure to capture him would harm Serbia's bid to join the European Union (EU). The 1 May 2006 deadline established by Del Ponte for Serbia to hand over Mladić passed, resulting in talks between Serbia and the EU being suspended. The EU considered Mladić's arrest, along with full cooperation with the ICTY, preconditions that had
 
to be met before Serbia could join the organization.[38]
In July 2008, Serbian officials voiced concern that Mladić would order or had ordered his bodyguards to kill him to prevent him from being captured to face trial.[39]

  Conjecture of possible death

On 16 June 2010, the family of Ratko Mladić filed a request to declare him dead, claiming that he had been in poor health and has been absent for seven years.[40] If the declaration had been approved Mladić's wife would have been able to collect a state pension and sell his property.[16] At this time, Mladić was still hiding in a house owned by his family.[41]

  Opinion polls

According to the March 2009 poll of the NGO Strategic Marketing for the television station B92, 14.29% of Serbia's citizens would reveal information that would lead to his arrest in exchange for €1 million, 20.57% do not have a determined attitude, and 65.14% would not divulge information for one million Euros (the poll was conducted when the United States embassy issued a reward of 1.3 million Euros for any information on Ratko Mladić).[42] However, it was noted that the formulation of the question might have been a problem, as the polling samples which opted "No" included also those who would immediately report Mladić without payment, believing that payment in this case is immoral. Although preceding reports indicated that 47% supported the extradition, it was apparent that most of the population is against it.[43]
According to a poll conducted by the National Committee for Cooperation with the ICTY, 78 % of those polled would not report Mladić to the authorities, 34 percent said they would approve of Mladić's arrest, while 40 percent believe he is a hero.[44]

  Videos of Mladić

On 11 June 2009, a Bosnian television station aired videos of Ratko Mladić, filmed over the past 10 years.[45] The last video that was featured in the show "60 Minuta" showed Mladić with two women, allegedly filmed in the winter of 2008. However, no evidence for this was given by television presenters. Serbia stated that it was "impossible" for the videos to have been filmed in 2008. Rasim Ljajić, Serbia's minister in charge of co-operation with the UN tribunal, confirmed that the footage was old and had already been handed over to the ICTY in March 2009.
He also said that "the last known footage was taken eight years ago. The last time Mladić was in military premises was at the Krcmari army barracks near (the western Serbian town of) Valjevo on 1 June 2002." The previously unseen images show Mladić in various restaurants and apartments and at what appears to be military barracks in Serbia, almost always accompanied by his wife Bosa and son Darko.[46] 
 
Arrest
Ratko Mladić was arrested on 26 May 2011 in Lazarevo, near Zrenjanin in the Banat region in northern Serbia. His arrest was carried out by two dozen Serbian special police officers wearing black uniforms and masks, and sporting no insignia. The police were accompanied by Security Information Agency and War Crimes Prosecutor's Office agents. The officers entered the village in four SUVs in the early morning hours, while most residents were still asleep. They pulled up to four houses simultaneously, each owned by Mladić's relatives. Mladić was about to venture into the yard for a walk after being awakened by pain, when four officers jumped over the fence and broke into the house just as he moved toward the door, grabbing Mladić, forcing him to the floor, and demanding he identify himself. Mladić identified himself correctly, and surrendered two pistols he had been carrying. He was then taken to Belgrade.[47][48] Mladić was arrested in the house of his cousin Branislav Mladić, at the Ul. Vuka Karadžića 2.[49] Branislav had been identified as a possible suspect at least two months before, and had been under surveillance right up to his arrest. After initial doubt as to the identity of the arrested man, Serbian President Boris Tadić confirmed that it was Mladić at a press conference and announced that the process of extraditing him to the ICTY was underway. Mladić had been using the pseudonym "Milorad Komadić" while in hiding.[50] Mladić was not wearing a beard or any disguise. His appearance reportedly showed he had "aged considerably", and one of his arms was paralyzed due to a series of strokes.[51]
Following his arrest, Mladić appeared before the Belgrade Higher Court for a hearing on whether he was fit to be extradited to the Hague. Judge Milan Dilparić suspended interrogation due to his poor health. Mladić's lawyer Miloš Šaljić said that his poor health prevented him from properly communicating. He was allegedly unable to confirm his personal data, but attempted to talk to the prosecutors on several occasions, especially to Deputy War Crimes Prosecutor Bruno Vekarić.[52] However, the court ruled that he was fit to be extradited on 27 May. According to the Serbian Health Ministry, a team of prison doctors described his health as stable following checkups. Mladić was also visited in prison by Health Minister Zoran Stanković, a former friend.[53] Mladić's trial formally opened in The Hague on 16 May 2012.[54]
Mladić was arrested on the same day that the EU's representative, Catherine Ashton visited Belgrade.[55] His arrest improved relations with the EU, which had been concerned that Serbia was sheltering Mladić.[56]

  Family

Mladić married Bosiljka "Bosa" and they had two children; son Darko and daughter Ana. Ana died on 24 March 1994, aged 23, in an apparent suicide.[57]
Mladić became a grandfather when his son Darko had a daughter, Anastasija, in 2001.[citation needed] A grandson, Stefan, was born in 2006.[citation needed]

  Daughter's suicide

There were conflicting reports in various Serbian publications regarding Ana's death and the discovery of her body. Some media said that her body was found in her blood-splattered bedroom, while others claim it was found in a nearby park or in the woods near the Topčider cemetery. However, it was concluded that she had used her father's handgun, which he had been awarded at military school in his youth. There are also conflicting opinions on the cause of the decision to commit suicide. She may have read about the war atrocities attributed to her father in the newspapers.[58]
Ratko himself said she had been killed by his enemies. Most people that knew Ratko personally said that his daughter's death transformed him into "a bloodthirsty maniac". One of his former commanders told Newsweek magazine: "Some people think he went mad. Mladic’s life had two phases – before and after the death of Ana. He never recovered. He was a broken man." Upon his arrest, he was allowed to leave his cell and visit the grave of his daughter where he spent a few minutes.[59]

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Josh Malihabadi

$
0
0
Josh Malihabadi
Josh Malihabadi 
Josh Malihabadi (Urdu: جوش ملیح آبادی‎) (born as Shabbir Hasan Khan; شبیر حسن خان) (December 5, 1894 – February 22, 1982) was a noted Urdu poet born in British India.[1][2] He was an Indian citizen until 1958, when he emigrated to Pakistan and became a Pakistani citizen. He wrote ghazals, nazm and Marsias under the takhallus (Urdu for nom de plume) Josh (جوش) (literally, "Passion" or "Intensity").[3]
 
Early life
Josh was born to an Afridi Pashtun family in Malihabad, United Provinces, British India. He studied at St Peter's College, Agra and passed his Senior Cambridge examination in 1914. Subsequently, he studied Arabic and Persian and, in 1918, spent six months at Tagore'suniversity at Shantiniketan. The death of his father, Bashir Ahmed Khan, in 1916, prevented him from undertaking a college education.

  Career

In 1925, Josh started to supervise translation work at Osmania University, in the princely state of Hyderabad. However, his stay there ended, when he found himself exiled from the state for writing a nazm against the Nizam of Hyderabad, the then ruler of the state.
Soon thereafter, he founded the magazine, Kaleem (literally, "interlocutor" in Urdu), in which he openly wrote articles in favour of independence from the British Raj in India. As his reputation spread, he came to be called Shaair-e-Inquilaab (Poet of the Revolution). Subsequently, he became more actively involved in the freedom struggle (albeit, in an intellectual capacity) and became close to some of the political leaders of that era, especially Jawaharlal Nehru (later to be the first Prime Minister of independent India).
After the end of British Raj in India (1947), Josh became the editor of the publication Aaj-Kal .
Josh Malihabadi's grand-daughter Tabassum Akhlaq has carried over the legacy of his poetry. Josh Memorial Committee was formed in 1986 by Tabassum Akhlaq and she is the current chairperson as well. The committee organizes seminars on the personality, history and literary work of Josh Malihabadi. These seminars are usually held on the birthday and death anniversary of Josh Malihabadi on 5th December and 22nd Februaury respectively.
In August 2012, Government of Pakistan announced Hilal-e-Pakistan for Josh Malihabadi. This award will be presented to his grand-daughter and founding chairperson of Josh Memorial Committee, Tabassum Akhlaq by the President of PakistanAsif Ali Zardari in a ceremony held in Presidency on Pakistan Day 23rd March, 2013.

  His poetry and publications

Josh is reputed to have had a masterful command over Urdu and was quite strict about respecting the grammar and rules of the language. This is the reason, he is also referred to as, the King of Urdu language. The first collection of his poetry was published in 1921.
  • Shola-o-Shabnam
  • Junoon-o-Hikmat
  • Fikr-o-Nishaat
  • Sunbal-o-Salaasal
  • Harf-o-Hikaayat
  • Sarod-o-Kharosh
  • Irfaniyat-e-Josh
  • Yaadon ki baraat (autobiography)
On the advice of film director W.Z. Ahmed, he also wrote songs for Shalimar Pictures. One of the pictures is Aag ka darya. During this time, he was staying in Pune.
Josh finally mentioned that his real believe is Humanism 
 
Awards
He was honored with the Padma Bhushan in 1954. He will also be honored with Hilal-e-Imtiaz by the Government of Pakistan on 23rd March, 2013.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The attack on Pearl Harbor

$
0
0
The burning wreckage of the U.S. Navy battlesh...
The burning wreckage of the U.S. Navy battleship USS Arizona (BB-39) at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 
The attack on Pearl Harbor (called Hawaii Operation or Operation AI[9][10] by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (Operation Z in planning)[11] and the Battle of Pearl Harbor[12]) was a surprise military strike conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan). From the standpoint of the defenders, the attack commenced at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time.[13] The attack was intended as a preventive action in order to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with military actions the Empire of Japan was planning in Southeast Asia against overseas territories of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States.
 
The base was attacked by 353[14] Japanese fighters, bombers and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers.[14] All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four being sunk. Two of these were later raised, and with the remaining four repaired, six battleships returned to service later in the war. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship,[nb 4] and one minelayer. 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed; 2,402 Americans were killed[16] and 1,282 wounded. Important base installations such as the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. Japanese losses were light: 29 aircraft and five midget submarines lost, and 65 servicemen killed or wounded. One Japanese sailor was captured.
 
The attack came as a profound shock to the American people and led directly to the American entry into World War II in both the Pacific and European theaters. The following day (December 8), the United States declared war on Japan. Domestic support for non-interventionism, which had been strong,[17] disappeared. Clandestine support of Britain (for example the Neutrality Patrol) was replaced by active alliance. Subsequent operations by the U.S. prompted Germany and Italy to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, which was reciprocated by the U.S. the same day.
There were numerous historical precedents for unannounced military action by Japan. However, the lack of any formal warning, particularly while negotiations were still apparently ongoing, led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to proclaim December 7, 1941, "a date which will live in infamy".
Anticipating war
 
The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and hence protect Japan's advance into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies, where it sought access to natural resources such as oil and rubber.[3] War between Japan and the United States had been a possibility of which each nation had been aware (and developed contingency plans for) since the 1920s, though tensions did not begin to grow seriously until Japan's 1931 invasion of Manchuria. Over the next decade, Japan continued to expand into China, leading to all-out war between those countries in 1937. Japan spent considerable effort trying to isolate China and achieve sufficient resource independence to attain victory on the mainland; the "Southern Operation" was designed to assist these efforts.[18]
From December 1937, events such as the Japanese attack on the USS Panay and the Nanking Massacre (more than 200,000 killed in indiscriminate massacres) swung public opinion in the West sharply against Japan and increased Western fear of Japanese expansion,[19] which prompted the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to provide loan assistance for war supply contracts to the Republic of China.
 
In 1940, Japan invaded French Indochina in an effort to control supplies reaching China. The United States halted shipments of airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline to Japan; this was perceived by Japan as an unfriendly act.[nb 5] The U.S. did not stop oil exports to Japan at that time in part because prevailing sentiment in Washington was that such an action would be an extreme step, given Japanese dependence on U.S. oil,[21][22] and likely to be considered a provocation by Japan.
Early in 1941, PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii from its previous base in San Diego and ordered a military buildup in the Philippines in the hope of discouraging Japanese aggression in the Far East. Because the Japanese high command was (mistakenly) certain any attack on Britain's Southeast Asian colonies would bring the U.S. into the war, a devastating preventive strike appeared to be the only way to avoid U.S. naval interference.[23] An invasion of the Philippines was also considered to be necessary by Japanese war planners. The U.S. War Plan Orange had envisioned defending the Philippines with a 40,000 man elite force. This was opposed by Douglas MacArthur, who felt that he would need a force ten times that size, and was never implemented.[24] By 1941, U.S. planners anticipated abandonment of the Philippines at the outbreak of war and orders to that effect were given in late 1941 to AdmiralThomas Hart, commander of the Asiatic Fleet.[25]
 
The U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941, following Japanese expansion into French Indochina after the fall of France, in part because of new American restrictions on domestic oil consumption.[26] This in turn caused the Japanese to proceed with plans to take the Dutch East Indies, an oil-rich territory.[nb 6] The Japanese were faced with the option of either withdrawing from China and losing face or seizing and securing new sources of raw materials in the resource-rich, European-controlled colonies of South East Asia.
 
Preliminary planning for an attack on Pearl Harbor to protect the move into the "Southern Resource Area" (the Japanese term for the Dutch East Indies and Southeast Asia generally) had begun very early in 1941 under the auspices of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, then commanding Japan's Combined Fleet.[28] He won assent to formal planning and training for an attack from the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff only after much contention with Naval Headquarters, including a threat to resign his command.[29] Full-scale planning was underway by early spring 1941, primarily by Captain Minoru Genda.[citation needed] Japanese planning staff studied the 1940 British air attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto intensively. It was of great use to them when planning their attack on U.S. naval forces in Pearl Harbor.[nb 7][nb 8]
 
Over the next several months, pilots trained, equipment was adapted, and intelligence collected. Despite these preparations, the attack plan was not approved by Emperor Hirohito until November 5, after the third of four Imperial Conferences called to consider the matter.[32] Final authorization was not given by the emperor until December 1, after a majority of Japanese leaders advised him the "Hull Note" would "destroy the fruits of the China incident, endanger Manchukuo and undermine Japanese control of Korea."[33]
 
By late 1941, many observers believed that hostilities between the U.S. and Japan were imminent. A Gallup poll just before the attack on Pearl Harbor found that 52% of Americans expected war with Japan, 27% did not expect war, and 21% had no opinion.[34] While U.S. Pacific bases and facilities had been placed on alert on multiple occasions, U.S. officials doubted Pearl Harbor would be the first target. They expected the Philippines to be attacked first. This presumption was due to the threat that the air bases throughout the country and the naval base at Manila posed to sea lanes, as well as the shipment of supplies to Japan from territory to the south.[35] They also incorrectly believed that Japan was not capable of mounting more than one major naval operation at a time.[36]

Objectives

The attack had several major aims. First, it intended to destroy important American fleet units, thereby preventing the Pacific Fleet from interfering with Japanese conquest of the Dutch East Indies and Malaya. Second, it was hoped to buy time for Japan to consolidate its position and increase its naval strength before shipbuilding authorized by the 1940 Vinson-Walsh Act erased any chance of victory.[37][38] Finally, it was meant to deliver a severe blow to American morale, one which would discourage Americans from committing to a war extending into the western Pacific Ocean and Dutch East Indies. To maximize the effect on morale, battleships were chosen as the main targets, since they were the prestige ships of any navy at the time. The overall intention was to enable Japan to conquer Southeast Asia without interference.[37]
 
Striking the Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor carried two distinct disadvantages: the targeted ships would be in very shallow water, so it would be relatively easy to salvage and possibly repair them; and most of the crews would survive the attack, since many would be on shore leave or would be rescued from the harbor. A further important disadvantage—this of timing, and known to the Japanese—was the absence from Pearl Harbor of all three of the U.S. Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers (Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga). Ironically, the IJN top command was so imbued with Admiral Mahan's "decisive battle" doctrine—especially that of destroying the maximum number of battleships—that, despite these concerns, Yamamoto decided to press ahead.
Japanese confidence in their ability to achieve a short, victorious war also meant other targets in the harbor, especially the navy yard, oil tank farms, and submarine base, could safely be ignored, since—by their thinking—the war would be over before the influence of these facilities would be felt.[39]
Japanese declaration of war
The attack took place before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan, but this was not Admiral Yamamoto's intention. He originally stipulated that the attack should not commence until thirty minutes after Japan had informed the United States that peace negotiations were at an end.[55][56] The Japanese tried to uphold the conventions of war while still achieving surprise, but the attack began before the notice could be delivered. Tokyo transmitted the 5,000-word notification (commonly called the "14-Part Message") in two blocks to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, but transcribing the message took too long for the Japanese ambassador to deliver it in time. (In fact, U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it.)[57] The final part of the "14 Part Message" is sometimes described as a declaration of war. While it neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations, it was viewed by a number of senior U.S government and military officials as a very strong indicator that negotiations were likely to be terminated [58] and that war might break out at any moment.[59] A declaration of war was printed on the front page of Japan's newspapers in the evening edition of December 8,[60] but not delivered to the U.S. government until the day after the attack.
 
For decades, conventional wisdom held that Japan attacked without any official warning of a break in relations only because of accidents and bumbling that delayed the delivery of a document hinting at war to Washington. In 1999, however, Takeo Iguchi, a professor of law and international relations at International Christian University in Tokyo, discovered documents that pointed to a vigorous debate inside the government over how, and indeed whether, to notify Washington of Japan's intention to break off negotiations and start a war, including a December 7 entry in the war diary saying, "our deceptive diplomacy is steadily proceeding toward success." Of this, Iguchi said, "The diary shows that the army and navy did not want to give any proper declaration of war, or indeed prior notice even of the termination of negotiations ... and they clearly pPossible third wave
 
Several Japanese junior officers, including Mitsuo Fuchida and Minoru Genda, the chief architect of the attack, urged Nagumo to carry out a third strike in order to destroy as much of Pearl Harbor's fuel and torpedo[nb 19] storage, maintenance, and dry dock facilities as possible;[80] and the captains of the other five carriers in the formation reported they were willing and ready to carry out a third strike.[81] Military historians have suggested the destruction of these would have hampered the U.S. Pacific Fleet far more seriously than loss of its battleships.[82] If they had been wiped out, "serious [American] operations in the Pacific would have been postponed for more than a year";[83] according to American Admiral Chester Nimitz, later Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, "it would have prolonged the war another two years."[84] Nagumo, however, decided to withdraw for several reasons:
  • American anti-aircraft performance had improved considerably during the second strike, and two thirds of Japan's losses were incurred during the second wave.[85] Nagumo felt if he launched a third strike, he would be risking three quarters of the Combined Fleet's strength to wipe out the remaining targets (which included the facilities) while suffering higher aircraft losses.[85]
  • The location of the American carriers remained unknown. In addition, the admiral was concerned his force was now within range of American land-based bombers.[85] Nagumo was uncertain whether the U.S. had enough surviving planes remaining on Hawaii to launch an attack against his carriers.[86]
  • A third wave would have required substantial preparation and turnaround time, and would have meant returning planes would have had to land at night. At the time, only the (British) Royal Navy had developed night carrier techniques, so this was a substantial risk.[87]
  • Weather had deteriorated notably since the first and second wave launching, and rough seas complicated takeoff and landing for a third wave attack.
  • The task force's fuel situation did not permit him to remain in waters north of Pearl Harbor much longer, since he was at the very limit of logistical support. To do so risked running unacceptably low on fuel, perhaps even having to abandon destroyers en route home.[88]
  • He believed the second strike had essentially satisfied the main objective of his mission—the neutralization of the Pacific Fleet—and did not wish to risk further losses.[89] Moreover, it was Japanese Navy practice to prefer the conservation of strength over the total destruction of the enemy.[90]
At a conference aboard Yamato the following morning, Yamamoto initially supported Nagumo.[89] In retrospect, sparing the vital dockyards, maintenance shops, and oil depots meant the U.S. could respond relatively quickly to Japanese activities in the Pacific. Yamamoto later regretted Nagumo's decision to withdraw and categorically stated it had been a great mistake not to order a third strike.[91]revailed."[61]
Ships lost or damaged

Battleships

  • Arizona: Exploded; total loss. 1,177 dead.
  • Oklahoma: Capsized, 429 dead. Refloated November 1943; capsized and lost while under tow to the mainland May 1947 [93]
  • West Virginia: two bombs, seven torpedoes, sunk; returned to service July 1944. 106 dead.
  • California: two bombs, two torpedoes, sunk; returned to service January 1944. 100 dead.
  • Nevada: six bombs, one torpedo, beached; returned to service October 1942. 60 dead.
  • Tennessee: two bombs; returned to service February 1942. 5 dead.
  • Maryland: two bombs; returned to service February 1942. 4 dead (including floatplane pilot shot down).
  • Pennsylvania (Kimmel’s Flagship):[94] in drydock with Cassin and Downes, one bomb, debris from USS Cassin; remained in service. 9 dead.

Ex-battleship (target/AA training ship)

  • Utah: Capsized; total loss. 58 dead.

Cruisers

  • Helena: One torpedo; returned to service January 1942. 20 dead.
  • Raleigh: One torpedo; remained in service.
  • Honolulu: Near miss, light damage; remained in service.

Destroyers

  • Cassin: in drydock with Downes and Pennsylvania, one bomb, burned; returned to service February 1944.
  • Downes: in drydock with Cassin and Pennsylvania, caught fire from Cassin, burned; returned to service November 1943.
  • Shaw: Three bombs; returned to service June 1942.

Auxiliaries

  • Oglala (minelayer): Damaged by torpedo hit on Helena, capsized; returned to service (as engine-repair ship) February 1944.
  • Vestal (repair ship): Two bombs, blast and fire from Arizona, beached; returned to service by August 1942.
  • Curtiss (seaplane tender): One bomb, one Japanese aircraft; returned to service January 1942. 19 dead.
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Nile River

$
0
0
Beginning of the Blue Nile River by its outlet...
Beginning of the Blue Nile River by its outlet from Lake Tana (Amhara Region, Ethiopia).
The Nile (Arabic: النيل, an-Nīl; Ancient Egyptian: Iteru& Ḥ'pī; Coptic Egyptian: ⲫⲓⲁⲣⲱ, P(h)iaro; Amharic: ዓባይ?, ʿAbbai) is a major north-flowing river in northeastern Africa, generally regarded as the longest river in the world.[3] It is 6,650 km (4,130 miles) long. The Nile is an "international" river as its water resources are shared by eleven countries, namely, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sudan and Egypt.[4] In particular, the Nile River provides the primary water resource and so it is the life artery for its downstream countries such as Egypt and Sudan.[5]
 
The Nile has two major tributaries, the White Nile and Blue Nile. The White Nile is longer and rises in the Great Lakes region of central Africa, with the most distant source still undetermined but located in either Rwanda or Burundi. It flows north through Tanzania, Lake Victoria, Uganda and South Sudan. The Blue Nile is the source of most of the water and fertile soil. It begins at Lake Tana in Ethiopia at
WikiMiniAtlas
12°02′09″N037°15′53″E / 12.03583°N 37.26472°E / 12.03583; 37.26472 and flows into Sudan from the southeast. The two rivers meet near the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.

The northern section of the river flows almost entirely through desert, from Sudan into Egypt, a country whose civilization has depended on the river since ancient times. Most of the population and cities of Egypt lie along those parts of the Nile valley north of Aswan, and nearly all the cultural and historical sites of Ancient Egypt are found along riverbanks. The Nile ends in a large delta that empties into the Mediterranean Sea.
 
Above Khartoum the Nile is also known as the White Nile, a term also used in a limited sense to describe the section between Lake No and Khartoum. At Khartoum the river is joined by the Blue Nile. The White Nile starts in equatorial East Africa, and the Blue Nile begins in Ethiopia. Both branches are on the western flanks of the East African Rift.
The drainage basin of the Nile covers 3,254,555 square kilometres (1,256,591 sq mi), about 10% of the area of Africa.[9] The Nile basin is complex, and because of this, the discharge at any given point along the mainstem depends on many factors including weather, diversions, evaporation and evapotranspiration, and groundwater flow.

Source

The source of the Nile is sometimes considered to be Lake Victoria, but the lake has feeder rivers of considerable size. The Kagera River, which flows into Lake Victoria near the Tanzanian town of Bukoba, is the longest feeder, although sources do not agree on which is the longest tributary of the Kagera and hence the most distant source of the Nile itself.[10] It is either the Ruvyironza, which emerges in Bururi Province, Burundi,[11] or the Nyabarongo, which flows from Nyungwe Forest in Rwanda.[12] The two feeder rivers meet near Rusumo Falls on the Rwanda-Tanzania border.
A recent exploration party[13] went to a place described as the source of the Rukarara tributary,[14] and by hacking a path up steep jungle-choked mountain slopes in the Nyungwe forest found (in the dry season) an appreciable incoming surface flow for many miles upstream, and found a new source, giving the Nile a length of 4199 miles (6758 kilometers)
Lost headwaters
Formerly Lake Tanganyika drained northwards along the African Rift Valley into the White Nile, making the Nile about 1,400 kilometres (870 mi) longer, until it was blocked in Miocene times by the bulk of the Virunga Volcanoes.

In Uganda

The Nile leaves Lake Victoria at Ripon Falls near Jinja, Uganda, as the Victoria Nile. It flows for approximately 500 kilometres (300 mi) farther, through Lake Kyoga, until it reaches Lake Albert. After leaving Lake Albert, the river is known as the Albert Nile.

In South Sudan

It then flows into South Sudan, where it is known as the Bahr al Jabal ("Sea of the Mountain", possibly from Nahr al Jabal, "River of the Mountain"). The Bahr al Ghazal, itself 716 kilometres (445 mi) long, joins the Bahr al Jabal at a small lagoon called Lake No, after which the Nile becomes known as the Bahr al Abyad, or the White Nile, from the whitish clay suspended in its waters. When the Nile floods it leaves a rich silty deposit which fertilizes the soil. The Nile no longer floods in Egypt since the completion of the Aswan Dam in 1970. An anabranch river, the Bahr el Zeraf, flows out of the Nile's Bahr al Jabal section and rejoins the White Nile.
Sudan
Below Renk the White Nile enters Sudan, it flows north to Khartoum and meets the Blue Nile.
The course of the Nile in Sudan is distinctive. It flows over six groups of cataracts, from the first at Aswan to the sixth at Sabaloka (just north of Khartoum) and then turns to flow southward before again returning to flow north. This is called the Great Bend of the Nile.
In the north of Sudan the river enters Lake Nasser (known in Sudan as Lake Nubia), the larger part of which is in Egypt.

In Egypt

Below the Aswan High Dam, at the northern limit of Lake Nasser, the Nile resumes its historic course.
North of Cairo, the Nile splits into two branches (or distributaries) that feed the Mediterranean: the Rosetta Branch to the west and the Damietta to the east, forming the Nile Delta.

Tributaries

Atbara River

Below the confluence with the Blue Nile the only major tributary is the Atbara River, roughly halfway to the sea, which originates in Ethiopia north of Lake Tana, and is around 800 kilometres (500 mi) long. The Atbara flows only while there is rain in Ethiopia and dries very rapidly. During the dry period of January to June, it typically dries up. It joins the Nile approximately 300 kilometres (200 mi) north of Khartoum.
 
Role in the founding of Egyptian civilization
 
The Greek historian Herodotus wrote that "Egypt was the gift of the Nile". An unending source of sustenance, it provided a crucial role in the development of Egyptian civilization. Silt deposits from the Nile made the surrounding land fertile because the river overflowed its banks annually. The Ancient Egyptians cultivated and traded wheat, flax, papyrus and other crops around the Nile. Wheat was a crucial crop in the famine-plagued Middle East. This trading system secured Egypt's diplomatic relationships with other countries, and contributed to economic stability. Far-reaching trade has been carried on along the Nile since ancient times.
 
The Ishango bone is probably an early tally stick. It has been suggested that this shows prime numbers and multiplication, but this is disputed. In the book How Mathematics Happened: The First 50,000 Years, Peter Rudman argues that the development of the concept of prime numbers could only have come about after the concept of division, which he dates to after 10,000 BC, with prime numbers probably not being understood until about 500 BC. He also writes that "no attempt has been made to explain why a tally of something should exhibit multiples of two, prime numbers between 10 and 20, and some numbers that are almost multiples of 10."[26] It was discovered along the headwaters of the Nile (near Lake Edward, in northeastern Congo) and was carbon-dated to 20,000 BC.
Water buffalo were introduced from Asia, and Assyrians introduced camels in the 7th century BC.
 
These animals were killed for meat, and were domesticated and used for ploughing—or in the camels' case, carriage. Water was vital to both people and livestock. The Nile was also a convenient and efficient means of transportation for people and goods. The Nile was an important part of ancient Egyptian spiritual life. Hapy was the god of the annual floods, and both he and the pharaoh were thought to control the flooding. The Nile was considered to be a causeway from life to death and the afterlife. The east was thought of as a place of birth and growth, and the west was considered the place of death, as the god Ra, the Sun, underwent birth, death, and resurrection each day as he crossed the sky. Thus, all tombs were west of the Nile, because the Egyptians believed that in order to enter the afterlife, they had to be buried on the side that symbolized death.
 
As the Nile was such an important factor in Egyptian life, the ancient calendar was even based on the 3 cycles of the Nile. These seasons, each consisting of four months of thirty days each, were called Akhet, Peret, and Shemu. Akhet, which means inundation, was the time of the year when the Nile flooded, leaving several layers of fertile soil behind, aiding in agricultural growth.[27]
Peret was the growing season, and Shemu, the last season, was the harvest season when there were no rains.[27]
 
 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Amazon River

$
0
0
English: Amazon River floating village neighbo...
English: Amazon River floating village neighborhood in Iquitos, Peru. Deutsch: Schwimmende Häusersiedlung auf dem Amazonas in Iquitos, Peru. Français : Amazone, Iquitos, Pérou. Español: Amazonas, Iquitos, Perú. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Amazon River (USpron.:/ˈæməzɒn/ or UK/ˈæməzən/; Spanish& Portuguese: Amazonas) in South America is the second longest[2][not in citation given]river in the world and by far the largest by waterflow with an average discharge greater than the next seven largest rivers combined (not including Madeira and Rio Negro, which are tributaries of the Amazon). The Amazon, which has the largest drainage basin in the world, about 7,050,000 square kilometres (2,720,000 sq mi), accounts for approximately one-fifth of the world's total river flow.[3][4]
 
In its upper stretches, above the confluence of the Rio Negro, the Amazon is called Solimões in Brazil; however, in Peru, Colombia and Ecuador, as well as the rest of the Spanish-speaking world, the river is generally called the Amazon downstream from the confluence of the Marañón and Ucayali rivers in Peru. The Ucayali-Apurímac river system is considered the main source of the Amazon, with as its main headstream the Carhuasanta glacial stream flowing off the Nevado Mismi mountain.
 
The width of the Amazon is 1.6 and 10 kilometres (1.0 and 6.2 mi) at low stage but expands during the wet season to 48 kilometres (30 mi) or more. The river enters the Atlantic Ocean in a broad estuary about 240 kilometres (150 mi) wide. The mouth of the main stem is 80 kilometres (50 mi).[5] Because of its vast dimensions, it is sometimes called The River Sea. The first bridge in the Amazon river system (over the Rio Negro) opened on 10 October 2010 near Manaus, Brazil.
 
Drainage area
The Amazon Basin, the largest in the world, covers about 40% of South America, an area of approximately 7,050,000 square kilometres (2,720,000 sq mi). It drains from west to east, from Iquitos in Peru, across Brazil to the Atlantic. It gathers its waters from 5 degrees north latitude to 20 degrees south latitude. Its most remote sources are found on the inter-Andean plateau, just a short distance from the Pacific Ocean. The locals often refer to it as "El Jefe Negro", referring to an ancient god of fertility.
 
The Amazon River and its tributaries are characterized by extensive forested areas that become flooded every rainy season. Every year the river rises more than 9 metres (30 ft), flooding the surrounding forests, known as várzea ("flooded forests"). The Amazon's flooded forests are the most extensive example of this habitat type in the world.[6] In an average dry season, 110,000 square kilometres (42,000 sq mi) of land are water-covered, while in the wet season, the flooded area of the Amazon Basin rises to 350,000 square kilometres (140,000 sq mi).[7]
 
The quantity of water released by the Amazon to the Atlantic Ocean is enormous: up to 300,000 cubic metres per second (11,000,000 cu ft/s) in the rainy season, with an average of 209,000 cubic metres per second (7,400,000 cu ft/s) from 1973 to 1990.[8] The Amazon is responsible for about 20% of the Earth's fresh water entering the ocean.[6] The river pushes a vast plume of fresh water into the ocean. The plume is about 400 kilometres (250 mi) long and between 100 and 200 kilometres (62 and 120 mi) wide. The fresh water, being lighter, flows on top of the seawater, diluting the salinity and altering the color of the ocean surface over an area up to 1,000,000 square miles (2,600,000 km2) in extent. For centuries ships have reported fresh water near the Amazon's mouth yet well out of sight of land in what otherwise seemed to be the open ocean.[4]
 
The Atlantic has sufficient wave and tidal energy to carry most of the Amazon's sediments out to sea, thus the Amazon does not form a true delta. The great deltas of the world are all in relatively protected bodies of water, while the Amazon empties directly into the turbulent Atlantic.[9]
There is a natural water union between the Amazon and the Orinoco basins, the so-called Casiquiare canal. The Casiquiare is a river distributary of the upper Orinoco, which flows southward into the Rio Negro, which in turn flows into the Amazon. The Casiquiare is the largest river on earth that links two major river systems, a so-called bifurcation.
 
In 1500, Vicente Yáñez Pinzón was the first European to sail into the river.[23] Pinzón called the river flow Río Santa María del Mar Dulce, later shortened to Mar Dulce (literally, sweet sea, because of its fresh water pushing out into the ocean). For 350 years after the first European encounter of the Amazon by Pinzón, the Portuguese portion of the basin remained an untended former food gathering and planned agricultural landscape occupied by the indigenous peoples who survived the arrival of European diseases. There is ample evidence for complex large-scale, pre-Columbian social formations, including chiefdoms, in many areas of Amazonia (particularly the inter-fluvial regions) and even large towns and cities.[24] For instance the pre-Columbian culture on the island of Marajó may have developed social stratification and supported a population of 100,000 people.[25] The Native Americans of the Amazon rain forest may have used Terra preta to make the land suitable for the large-scale agriculture needed to support large populations and complex social formations such as chiefdoms.[25]
 
One of Gonzalo Pizarro's lieutenants, Francisco de Orellana, set off in 1541 to explore east of Quito into the South American interior in search of El Dorado and the "Country of Cinnamon".[26] He was ordered to follow the Coca River and return when the river reached its confluence. After 170 km, the Coca River joined the Napo River (at a point now known as Puerto Francisco de Orellana), and his men threatened to mutiny if he followed his orders and the expedition turned back. On 26 December 1541, he accepted to change the purpose of the expedition to the conquest of new lands in the name of the King of Spain, and the forty-nine men built a larger boat in which to navigate downstream. After a journey of 600 km down the Napo River, constantly threatened by the Omaguas, they reached a further major confluence, at a point near modern Iquitos, and then followed what is now known as the Amazon River for a further 1,200 km to its confluence with the Rio Negro (near modern Manaus), which they reached on 3 June 1542.
 
This area around the Amazon was dominated by the Icamiaba natives, who were mistaken for fierce female warriors by the members of the expedition.[citation needed] Orellana later narrated the belligerent victory of the Icamiaba “women” over the Spanish invaders to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who, recalling the Amazons of Greek mythology, baptized the river Amazonas, the name by which it is still known in both Spanish and Portuguese. At the time, however, the river was referred to by the expedition as Grande Río ("Great River"), Mar Dulce ("Fresh Water Sea") or Río de la Canela ("Cinnamon River"). Orellana claimed that he had found great cinnamon trees there, in other words a source of one of the most important spices reaching Europe from the East. In fact, true cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum) is not native to South America. Other related cinnamon-containing plants (of the family Lauraceae) do occur, and Orellana may have observed some of these. The expedition continued a further 1,200 km to the mouth of the Amazon, which it reached on 24 August 1542, demonstrating the practical navigability of the Great River.
 
Underground river
Scientists have discovered the longest underground river in the world, in Brazil, running for a length of 6,000 km at a depth of nearly 4 km. It flows from the Andean foothills to the Atlantic coast in a nearly west-to-east direction like the Amazon River. The discovery was made public in August 2011[35] meeting of the Brazilian Geophysical Society in Rio de Janeiro. The river, named Hamza after the discoverer, an Indian-born scientist Valiya Hamza who is working with the National Observatory at Rio, makes it the first and geologically unusual instance of a twin-river system flowing at different levels of the earth's crust in Brazil. If the slowing down of certain seismic waves caused by the damp spot helped uncover the underground ocean, the unusual temperature variation with depth measured in 241 inactive oil wells helped locate the subterranean river.
 
Except for the flow direction, the Amazon and the Hamza have very different characteristics. The most obvious ones are their width and flow speed. While the Amazon is 1 km to 100 km wide, the Hamza is 200 km to 400 km in width. But the flow speed is five meters per second in the Amazon and less than a millimeter per second speed in the Hamza.[35]
 
Several geological factors have played a vital role in the formation and existence of these subterranean water bodies. The underground ocean, discovered in 2007, has been formed when the plate carrying the Pacific Ocean bottom gets dragged and ends up under the continental plate. Water at such depths would normally escape upwards but the unusual conditions that exist along the eastern Pacific Rim allow the moisture to remain intact. In the case of the Hamza, the porous and permeable sedimentary rocks behave as conduits for the water to sink to greater depths. East-west trending faults and the karst topography present along the northern border of the Amazon basin may have some role in supplying water to the river. If the impermeable rocks stop the vertical flow, the west to east gradient of the topography directs it to flow towards the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike the Hamza, the 153 km-long underground river in Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula and the 8.2 km-long Cabayugan River in the Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park in the Philippines have come into being thanks to the karst topography. Water in these places drills its way downward by dissolving the carbonate rock to form an extensive underground river system.
 
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Pervaiz Mushrraff Arival in Pictures

$
0
0


 Pervaiz Mushrraff Arival in Pictures






Enhanced by Zemanta

TIPS TO INCREASE TRAFFIC TO BLOG

$
0
0
Google Appliance as shown at RSA Expo 2008 in ...


TIPS TO INCREASE TRAFFIC TO BLOG

2. Post on Your Blog Regularly Search engines and blogservices love regular updates. Add 2-3 post per a week.

3. Submit to Google’s Reader When you submit your ownblog RSS to Google’s Reader the Google Blog Search will index your site.

4. Submit your blog to blog directories There are trusted blog directories you can submit your blog

5. Submit your RSS feed to RSS directories

6. Submit your posts to social bookmarking sites

7. Go to forums and find problems to solve Do not forget to leave your blog link, but do not spam.

8. Article Marketing Submit articles with a link toyour blog to article directories

9. Use Facebook and TwitterUse social networking sites to get followers.

10. Optimize Your ContentWrite quality blog posts which are useful for the vistors.

11. DO YOU USE WORDPRESS?GET THE BEST WORDPRESS SEO PLUGIN TO BOOST

YOUR RANKINGS AND GET MORE TRAFFIC CLICK HERE TO GET IT NOW

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewing all 6211 articles
Browse latest View live